Article Preview
Negotiating an End to the Cold War:
The Hazards
- Abstract
In the British House of Commons debate on the conference “at the summit” the left-wing Labor MP, Konni Zilliacus, declared that the meeting of the heads of governments had achieved an “armistice in the cold war.” This is undoubtedly the way in which the Communists regard the conference. In a shooting war an armistice means a suspension of actual hostilities, which may be followed by a negotiated peace treaty, may be merely a temporary truce followed by a resumption of fighting, or may be indefinitely prolonged—as in Korea—without any agreed settlement of the issues about which the war has been fought. An armistice in the cold war implies a cessation for the time being of the open menaces, insults, and denunciations which the term connotes; it does not, on the other hand, involve any certainty, or even probability, of an agreed settlement of the basic conflicts between the free world and the states of the Sino-Soviet bloc. This situation was clearly recognized by Sir Anthony Eden in his television talk to the British people on his return from Geneva, when he declared: “I truly believe that this meeting at Geneva and the acceptance by the Russian leaders of my invitation here can open a new era. It has not done so yet, but it has made serious negotiations possible.”
About the Author
This article is available for purchase to subscribers and for individual purchase
Subscriber Sign In
Not A Subscriber?
