According to the April 30th issue of U.S. News & World Report, “the new U.S.–Russian treaty on strategic–arms limitation—SALT—has been all but formally settled . . . SALT II will go beyond the first strategic–arms agreement by putting firmer ceilings on the numbers of intercontinental missiles, bombers and warheads the two super-powers can have.” The American people are being asked by the Carter Administration to support the ratification of SALT II in the U.S. Senate in the name of detente.But what exactly does detente mean to the Soviet Communists? It means that the military forces of the United States and its allies must remain immobilized and inactive while the Russian communists take over country after country throughout the world.

This is made clear in an article by Vladimir Kudryautsev, Soviet Political Analyst, Deputy of the Supreme Soviet USSR, and Vice-President of the Soviet Afro–Asian Solidarity Committee, published in the American communist newspaper, Daily World last March 13.

The Russian Communist spokesman for the Kremlin pointed out that, under the restraints of Detente imposed by the U.S. Government upon itself the countries of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Angola have been added to the Soviet sphere of influence, while the Western democracies have lost Iran, and bases have been secured by the Russians for intensified. attacks upon Rhodesia, Southwest Africa and South Africa itself. The article stated in part:

The opponents of detente, who oppose its spread to all countries without exception, resort to allegations that this international process stands in the way of the national-liberation struggle and disarms its participants politically and militarily.

The aim of such assertions is not only to stop the development of detente, but also to set the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa against the Soviet Union as the inspirer of this policy.

The facts, however, completely refute this interpretation of detente. When the policy of detente asserted itself in relations between countries, during the 1970s, successes were scored by the national–liberation movement. Victory was the culmination of the Vietnamese people’s struggle against U.S. aggression for the reunification of their country.

The path of socialist development was taken by the liberated peoples of Laos and Cambodia, where the savage Pol Pot regime was overthrown. A people’s revolution destroyed the vestiges of feudalism in Afghanistan.

In Iran the Shah’s dictatorship is overthrown and a republican system established. A national democratic revolution has won in Ethiopia. Lastly the 1970s were marked by the collapse of the last colonial empire—the Portuguese. The result of this was the emergence on the map of progressive independent states of Mozambique and Angola. Under the direct influence of this victory an intensified assault was mounted against the racist citadels in Rhodesia, Southwest Africa and South Africa itself.

All these facts convincingly show that detente, far from holding back the development of the national–liberation movement, has actually provided it with fresh opportunities in the struggle for independence . . . The successful struggle of the peoples for national liberation strengthens detente by promoting the abolition of seats of the danger of war and is objectively directed towards consolidation of peace and security.

The national liberation struggle of the Arab peoples who demand the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all occupied Arab territories and also the right of the Arab people of Palestine to set up a sovereign state, in fact means a struggle for the relaxation of tensions in the Middle East.

The same can be said of the victory of national patriotic forces in Iran, which has resulted in the cancellation of new deliveries of American armaments to that country, which of course helped to ease tension in the region.

Obviously to these Russian Communists, Peace means the Communist enslavement of mankind while Detente provides them with the formula and device for doing so: external encirclement, plus internal demoralization, plus thermonuclear war blackmail, equals the progressive surrender of the free world. It is astounding to think that President Carter should be providing the rope with which the Soviet Communists intend to hang and destroy America. President Carter today chooses to ignore the stated objectives of the Soviet Communists to liberate the nations of the world in the name of their godless philosophy. Let the American people wake up in time before it is too late to stop the Communists. Write to your Congressman and Senator objecting most vehemently to Carter‘s proposed SALT II Treaty with the Soviet gangsters of the Kremlin in the name of his phony policy of detente, which really means a policy of appeasement and surrender.

Do we really want to see the terrible history of the 1930s when our leaders tried to appease Nazi Germany repeat itself in the 1970s? Have we forgotten the futile efforts of the British government in 1935 to sign an Anglo–German Naval Pact to limit German naval construction? Have we forgotten Neville Chamberlain‘s infamous surrender to Hitler at Munich in September, 1938 when the British government agreed to the transfer of Sudeten territory from Czechoslovakia?

The only hope we now have of avoiding the Communist conquest of the world is to say to them “Stop right now,” or else we will declare war upon you. Each surrender that takes place will only make the final stand against tyranny more difficult to make. Whether we like it or not we are even now engaged in a life and death struggle with the Soviet imperialists in the Kremlin. Let us take to heart the warning of the prophet Jeremiah:

They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace. (Jeremiah 6:14).

E.L. Hebden Taylor is Associate Professor of Sociology at Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa.