The signing of the Moscow Treaty between the U.S.S.R. and the United States and Great Britain has been welcomed by the very big majority of international public opinion as a sign of decrease in international tension, of easing in the cold war, and as a step albeit relative in the direction of a cessation of the process of nuclear armament. In this is reflected the sentiments of the masses who, rightly fear a nuclear war, grip with hope every sign which appears to them of promising nature. The Unified Secretariat of the Fourth International however considers that a correct valuation of the Moscow treaty must necessarily be based on an analysis of the reasons which have impelled the signatory powers to conclude this treaty, and of the practical consequences that it implies, while avoiding the pitfalls of propaganda that aims to discredit from the commencement of those who dare to advance criticism and whom efforts are being made to present by a dishonest formula as "enemies of peace", and war mongers regardless of the danger of a nuclear holocast.
The nuclear powers have been impelled to agree by a number of reasons which one can sum up as follows:—
(a) The situation of relative equilibrium which the nuclear arms race has reached due to the fact that even that power which finds itself at a disadvantage nevertheless has a sufficient stock pile to make the efficacious counter attack and completely destroy its adversary. "A certain rationalisation" particularly of nuclear arms is thus imposed as a necessity, and on this plane there existed a basis for compromise.
(b) Even for powers like the United States and the Soviet Union, the pursuit and ultimate acceleration of an irrational nuclear arms race means an increasingly heavy economic burden which neither of them could permit to increase indefinitely without grave consequences. The leadership, of the U.S.S.R. could not do this without damage to the economic policy that it is following, while for the United States, the nuclear armaments race in its present form does not stimulate the economy in the same way as in the case of the classical type of armaments.
(c) Above all for the two principal nuclear powers (Great Britain and even more France are much behind) the need to stabilise the situation at the present level, stabilising the relationship of forces, avoiding if possible the entry of other powers into the "atomic club", and in the first place of China in order thus to strengthen their hegamony for their respective camps.
The leaders of the signatory powers considered besides that they could exploit the treaty by presenting it to the mass as a concession to their pressure, as a success albeit partial of, their struggle against war, hoping also in this way to consolidate their position within their respective countries.
As to the real meaning of the treaty, it is necessary above all to underline that its content is in itself very modest because (a) not only does the nuclear stock arms remain intact, but it will be constantly augmented without any violation of the treaty. (b) underground tests continue. (c) the ultimate distribution of nuclear arms is not banned; not only information but also arms can be transmitted to other powers. Indeed, immediately after the signing of the treaty, the United States has proceeded with new tests and supplied nuclear war heads to their Canadian allies, thus concretising sentiments expressed earlier before the American Congress by certain close collaborators of Kennedy. The preparations for a nuclear war have not stopped, tests are continuing, the two principal powers are trying further to consolidate their superiority. Facts of this nature counter balance very considerably the one result that would flow from strict application of the treaty, namely the elimination of the dangers of radio active fall out.
On the other hand if one considers the treaty more closely, it appears clearly to favour generally the two big nuclear powers to the detriment of others, it gives particularly greater advantages to the United States than to the Soviet Union, which has besides given up its earlier position in this matter. The continuation of underground tests is more advantageous for the United States because of their greater experience in this regard. But—and this is most important—if Kennedy has difficulties in his camp, he has not provoked any division and has not aggravated the situation that existed earlier, while the decision of the Soviet leaders has had as it's easily forseeable consequence a breach in practice between the two most powerful worker states.
The accusations made against the Chinese by the supporters of Khrushchev in the Soviet Union and the world are absolutely unjustified. In the manifest intention—quite naturally of the imperialists, but also in that of Khrushchev, the treaty is clearly directed against China whom he wishes thus to relegate to a clear position of inferiority. On the other hand, the argument according to which the Soviet Union by refusing to aid China in the matter of atomic arms, by contributing to prevent the dissemination of nuclear bombs has served the cause of peace, is equally unacceptable. In the first place this dissemination existed earlier in the imperialist camp and the treaty nowhere prevents this happening further. In the second place one cannot place on the same level the nuclear arming of a worker state and that of a capitalist state. In fact, if the increase in the number of bourgeois states furnished with nuclear arms implies an increase in the danger of war, the contrary is true in the case of worker states, which, by their very nature, have no interest in either unleashing a war of aggression or of preventing war. On the contrary, the fact, that the worker states other than the U.S.S.R. possessed nuclear arms woud only have constituted a supplementary obstacle to the war plans of the imperialists.
The statement made by the supporters of Khrushchev according to which the U.S.S.R. is the shield of the entire socialist world, that it must remain the sole nuclear shield, that the Soviet leadership is the only leadership competent to make decisions in the matter of nuclear armament, far from being acceptable really constitutes an unmasking of themselves by themselves. These statements in practice clearly bring back the concept of "a guiding state" which had been proclaimed to have been given up for ever.
The vehement protests of the Chinese—whose steps and statements have been hidden and deformed before international working class opinion—are the well founded because, from 1959 the Soviet leaders have violated the agreement made with China in 1957 on the supply of "new technics", because on the occasion of the signing of the treaty they have violated certain clauses of the Warsaw Pact in relation to Albania which, despite the ultra bureaucratic regime of Hodja, remains a worker state which has never formally ceased to be a member of this Pact, and because at the time of the crisis between capitalist India and the Chinese worker state, they supplied arms to Nehru and after news of an ever worsening situation they have just concluded with Nehru even more serious commitments, including commitments concerning the supply of strategic arms.
The Fourth International, throwing light on the real meaning of the Moscow treaty and denouncing all the biased propagandist deformities, continues to fight against the threat of a nuclear war according to the line layed down by its recent unification congress by demanding the banning of all nuclear arms, the destruction of existing stocks, the suspension of all nuclear tests, and by supporting the mass movements against war, more particularly the fact which, in a series of capitalist countries, is continuing for unilateral nuclear disarmament and for the elimination of imperialist bases through out the world. It considers that the propositions made by the Government of the Peoples Republic of China on 31st July 1963 particularly concerning the cessation of all nuclear tests, the destruction of existing stocks, the abolition of foreign military bases, form a valid basis for all those who desire a real nuclear disarmament and not a pretence which aims to hide completely different aims and to sow dangerous illusions among the masses.