The Kremlin’s Foreign Policy

[p022] THE KREMLIN’S FOREIGN POLICY This brings us to the Kremlin’s role in world affairs and its relations to British Labour’s foreign policy. Some spokesmen on the right are prone to dismiss criticism from the left with the bogey-phrase, ‘““Communist-inspired.” Although this epithet is no substitute for an argument, it will be well to meet it in advance. : At home it is possible to stand wholly on the side of the Transport and General Workers’ Union against the Tory government and the employers, and yet be extremely criti- © cal of Mr. Arthur Deakin and his policy. Abroad, it is no less possible to be for the defence of the Soviet Union against all its imperialist enemies (Churchill and the — bosses included) without supporting the policies of the Kremlin. Two kinds of people cannot understand or admit this distinction. One kind are the witch-hunters who iden- tify every anti-imperialist position with allegiance to Mos- cow. The other are the leaders and followers of Stalinism 19

[p023] who blindly accept whatever comes from the Kremlin. The genuine Labour Lefts do not belong to either category. We have said that British Labour ought to collaborate on the foreign field with all anti-capitalist sectors and all anti-war forces. Among them is certainly the Soviet Union. It would be hopelessly utopian and downright reactionary in the present line-up of world forces and the extreme ten- sion in international relations to try and find some middle ground where neutralism can act as honest broker between the two contending class camps. But it does not at all follow that British Labour must thereby attach itself bag and baggage to the Kremlin. Quite the contrary. The British Labour Movement must formulate and follow its own foreign policy which steers — clear of the compromising diplomacy of Moscow. We have already pointed out that the war-time deals Stalin made with Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman helped produce many of the evils of the post-war period. Russia’s brutal treatment of Communist Yugoslavia is inexcusable. Its recent proposal to return to the Potsdam Treaty and revive the German army explicitly incorporating ex-Nazi officers and generals does not coincide with the desires of the German people. These are only some of the instances where the Kremlin © has deceived, disappointed and misled the working class. The Kremlin’s foreign policy is not at all guided by con-. siderations for the welfare of the international labour move- ment and its struggle for socialism, but rather by the narrow interests of the dictatorial bureaucracy headed by Stalin. At the same time, the Soviet Union, as a state where nationalized property predominates, does not have the economic compulsions which are driving its capitalist anta-_ gonists toward aggression and war. Stalin is not at all ‘bent on fomenting revolution on a world-scale, as the reac- tionaries would have us believe. If he had been plotting _ either world revolution or world war, Soviet armies would ts long since have occupied Europe and Asia. 7 20

[p024] ‘What, then, does Stalin really want? He would like another deal with Washintgon to divide the world into spheres of influence—and then be left alone on that basis. _ This is the meaning of the Stalinist theory of “peaceful co- existence’? between capitalism and the Communist coun- tries, and would be the objective of his participation in a new Five-Power Conference. The trouble is that the US. imperialists cannot offer any acceptable terms for such a deai, for reasons we have already indicated. Thus it is ‘not the ageressiveness of the Kremlin, but the belligerence . of Washington that prevents a solution on such a basis from being realized. The U.S.S.R. is an anti-capitalist country. The Kremlin is essentially interested in preventing the new world war. This coincides with the interests of the British people and provides a realistic basis for collaboration. But it will have to be conducted on equal as well as fraternal terms. Where- — ever the Kremlin acts in a manner injurious to the working class, the other sections of world labour have both the Tight and the duty to-condemn its action. ~ . It is up to British Labour to take the lead in foreign affairs, without allegiance to. Washington and without sub- _ servience to Moscow. In this way our movement could ‘break through the present deadlock in world politics and offer new hope to the workers and colonial peoples who are seeking a way to resist Wall Street’s aggression with-— out falling ; into the clutches of the Kremlin and the parties ‘under its control.