"De-ideologising" world conflict: Gorbachev's foreign policy

Labour Briefing no. 82, 26 April 1989, p. 15

Transcribed or corrected by hand from the printed page.

By-line as printed: Phil Hearse (Islington North CLP).

"George just can't stand being outshone by Mikhail" observed a White House staff member.

Indeed, every commentator notes that in response to Gorbachev's foreign policy offensives, the US seems bogged down in a rut.

Even worse, public opinion in the West accepts that it is the Soviet Union which is making the positive proposals on disarmament and various world crises, not the USA.

But socialists in the West should look closely at exactly what Gorbachev is proposing in the international area before they get swept away in clouds of "Gorbymania".

We have to look at the overall thrust of Soviet foreign policy — its basic long-term intention — and the effects of that policy on specific struggles and disputes.

The fundamental Soviet proposal is for a "de-ideologisation" of international affairs and for a negotiated solution to world conflicts.

The Gorbachevites are saying, very loudly, that the key problems which the world faces — the ecological time bomb, nuclear weapons, world poverty — can and must be solved by an international process of discussion and collaboration, without regard to the ideological and social differences between states.

It is exactly such propositions which are making Gorbachev popular in the West, including among many people on the left.

But the Soviet position is in the end wrong and indeed harmful to the cause on international socialism, however popular it may be.

From a theoretical point of view, the Soviet idea of "de-ideologisation" of international affairs is either naive or cynical.

It is not possible to achieve it so long as the world is dominated economically and politically by the big imperialist powers.

It is impossible, for example, to negotiate an overall solution to the problem of nuclear weapons because, in the end, world imperialism will never disarm itself.

Militarism is a crucial part of its power and its ability to exert its economic and political strength. What, then, is the rationale of the Soviet proposals on international affairs?

Simply summed up, Gorbachev has realised that to gain more room for economic manoeuvre he desperately needs to relieve Western military pressure on the Soviet Union and cut back the Soviet defence budget, objectives which socialists do not, in principle, oppose.

But the mechanism which Gorbachev has chosen for this venture is not to mobilise a massive new surge of the international anti-war movement, or to link the fight of the Soviet Union against US militarism to anti-imperialism.

Rather he has chosen to attempt, through adept negotiating ploys and big concessions, to outflank the US, to "end the Cold War" and do a deal with imperialism.

There are parts of this "deal" which socialists can endorse.

For example, the withdrawal of Soviet occupation troops from Afghanistan is progressive, whatever the Soviet motivation for doing it.

Equally, a reduction of the Soviet defence budget from the crippling, absurd levels of the 1970s is a welcome step.

Socialists have never argued that the Soviet Union can be defended by trying to match every piece of United States nuclear and conventional hardware.

But there are other aspects ot Soviet policy which are less progressive, where Gorbachev has shown himself quite happy to do deals with imperialism at the expense of those in struggle against it.

For example, Nicaragua today has ceased to receive oil from the Soviet Union and has to buy it from Venezuela, in a situation of total economic collapse after years of contra war and the 1988 hurricane.

In Southern Africa, the USSR is utilising every bit of weight it has with the South African Communist Party and the ANC to force them into a negotiated regional "settlement" which would leave the apartheid regime intact.

The Soviet behaviour in backing South Africa against SWAPO in the recent conflict over the Namibian independence agreement has been utterly despicable.

In the Middle East the Soviet Union has tried to re-establish its influence by re-establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, has been cautious in condemning Israeli atrocities against Palestinians, and has pressed the PLO to negotiate a settlement, involving the recognition of Israel.

In Indochina, the Soviet Union has been keen to force the Vietnamese into participation in the regional "peace process", which involves bringing the Khmer Rouge back into the Kampuchean government.

All this is in line with the Soviet attempts to created a new modus vivendi with world capitalism.

It is a policy of "peaceful coexistence", which has been, in different ways, the guiding policy of Soviet foreign affairs since the 1930s.

There is a paradox here. By being seen as the "peacemaker" Gorbachev has undermined Cold War and anti-Soviet prejudices.

But there is a real danger that he will also help to undermine struggles against imperialism and in fact get very little in return from the US.

It has to be pointed out that the only thing Gorbachev has won from the US, so far, is the INF treaty, which in hard military terms is mainly symbolic.

The paradox of Gorbachevism is summed up by the state of CND and the peace movement in Britain today. In the early 1980s CND mobilised up to 400,000 people on the streets, but is now in rapid decline.

This is not because it was "defeated" over the the siting of Cruise missiles in Britain but because in the epoch of Gorbachevism, the Kinnockites and some CND leaders have succeeded in convincing people that unilateralism is no longer relevant and that the best way forward is through international negotiations.

But the fact is that world peace, social justice, and democracy cannot be achieved primarily through negotiations with imperialism.

In the end it can only be achieved through the political struggle of millions of people. That is our basic socialist difference with Gorbachev's foreign policy.

transcribed from the page image, 2 Nov 2026; spelling as printed ("the cause on international socialism", "other aspects ot Soviet policy", "attempts to created a new", "over the the siting"). International Briefing page. Kicker "'De-Ideologising' world conflict" in a band above the headline; the paper capitalises it De-Ideologising, set here in sentence case. By-line "By Phil Hearse / Islington North CLP" in a ruled panel at the head of the second column. The bold opening runs over two paragraphs and is kept bold. Complete on the page, no jump; the text wraps round a Gorbachev cartoon (no caption; left out). Left out: the boxed advert for the "Gorbachev and the European Left" conference (Oxford, June 3rd–4th), and "USA: Eastern Airlines Strike — Bush and cronies battle union" by Woody Haut below, a separate article.