The Novikov
Telegram
Washington, September 27, 1946
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Postwar
Period
(All underlining replicates that of
Foreign minister Viacheslav Molotov.)
The foreign policy of the United
States, which reflects the imperialist tendencies of American monopolistic
capital, is characterized in the postwar period by a striving for world
supremacy. This is the real meaning of the many statements by President
Truman and other representatives of American ruling circles: that the United
States has the right to lead the world. All the forces of American
diplomacy-the army, the air force, the navy, industry, and science-are enlisted
in the service of this foreign policy. For this purpose broad plans for
expansion have been developed and are being implemented through diplomacy and
the establishment of a system of naval and air bases stretching far beyond the
boundaries of the United States, through the arms race, and through the
creation of ever newer types of weapons.
1. a) The
foreign policy of the United States is conducted now in a situation that
differs greatly from the one that existed in the prewar period. This
situation does not fully conform to the calculations of those reactionary
circles which hoped that during the Second World War they would succeed in
avoiding, at least for a long time, the main battles in Europe and Asia. They
calculated that the United States of America, if it was unsuccessful in
completely avoiding direct participation in the war, would enter it only at the
last minute, when it could easily affect the outcome of the war, completely
ensuring its interests.
In this regard, it was thought that
the main competitors of the United States would be crushed or greatly weakened
in the war, and the United States by virtue of this circumstance would assume the
role of the most powerful factor in resolving the fundamental question of
the postwar world. Theses calculations were also
based on the assumption, which was very widespread in the United States in the
initial stages of the war, that the Soviet Union, which had been subjected to
the attacks of German Fascism in June 1941, would also be exhausted or even
completely destroyed as a result of the war.
Reality did not bear out the
calculations of the American imperialists.
b) The two main aggressive powers,
fascist Germany and militarist Japan, which were at the same time the main
competitors of the United States in both the economic and foreign policy
fields, were thoroughly defeated. The third great power Great Britain, which
had taken heavy blows during the war, now faces enormous economic and political
difficulties. The political foundations of the British Empire were appreciably
shaken, and crises arose, for example, in India, Palestine, and Egypt.
Europe has come out of the war with
a completely dislocated economy, and the economic devastation that occurred in
the course of the war cannot be overcome in a short time. All of the countries
of Europe and Asia are experiencing a colossal need for consumer gods,
industrial and transportation equipment, etc. Such a situation provides
American monopolistic capital with prospects for enormous shipments of goods
and the importation of capital into these countries-a circumstance that
would permit it to infiltrate their national economies.
Such a development would mean a
serious strengthening of the economic position of the United States in the
whole world and would be stage on the road to world domination by the United
States.
c) On the other hand, we have seen a
failure of calculations on the part of U.S. circles which assumed that the
Soviet Union would be destroyed in the war or would come out of it so weakened
that it would be forced to go begging to the United States for economic
assistance. Had that happened, they would have been able to dictate conditions
permitting the United States to carry out its expansion in Europe and Asia
without hindrance from the USSR.
In actuality, despite all of the
economic difficulties of the postwar period connected with the enormous losses
inflicted by the war and the German fascist occupation, the Soviet Union
continues to remain economically independent of the outside world and is rebuilding
its national economy with its own forces.
At the
same time the USSR's international
position is currently stronger than it was in the prewar period. Thanks to
the historical victories of Soviet weapons, the Soviet armed forces are located
on the territory of Germany and other formerly hostile countries, thus
guaranteeing that these countries will not be used again for an attack on the
USSR. In formerly hostile countries, such Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, and
Romania, democratic reconstruction has established regimes that have
undertaken to strengthen and maintain friendly relations with the Soviet Union.
In the Slavic countries that were liberated by the Red Army or with its
assistance-Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia- democratic regimes have also
been established that maintain relations with the Soviet Union on the basis of
agreements on friendship and mutual assistance.
The enormous relative weight of the
USSR in international affairs in general and in the European countries in
particular, the independence of its foreign policy, and the economic and
political assistance that it provides to neighboring countries, both allies and
former enemies, has led to the growth of the political influence of the Soviet
Union in these countries and to the further strengthening of democratic
tendencies in them.
Such a situation in Eastern and
Southeastern Europe cannot help but be regarded by the American imperialists as
an obstacle in the path of the expansionist policy of the United States.
2. a) The
foreign policy of the United States is not determined at present by the
circles in the Democratic party that (as was the case during Roosevelt's
lifetime) strive to strengthen the cooperation of the three great powers that
constituted the basis of the anti-Hitler coalition during the war. The
ascendance to power of President Truman, a politically unstable person but with
certain conservative tendencies, and the subsequent appointment of [James]
Byrnes as Secretary of State meant a strengthening of the influence on U.S.
foreign policy of the most reactionary circles of the Democratic party. The
constantly increasing reactionary nature of the foreign policy course of the
United States, which consequently approached the policy advocated by the
Republican party, laid the groundwork for close
cooperation in this field between the far right wing of the Democratic party
and the Republican party. This cooperation of the two parties, which took shape
in both houses of Congress in the form of an unofficial bloc of reactionary
Southern Democrats and the old guard of the Republicans headed by [Senator
Arthur] Vandenberg and [Senator Robert] Taft, was especially clearly manifested
in the essentially identical foreign policy statements issued by figures of
both parties. In Congress and at international conferences, where as a rule
leading republicans are represented in the delegations of the United States,
the Republicans actively support the foreign policy of the government. This is
the source of what is called, even in official, statements,
"bi-partisan" foreign policy.
b) At the same time, there has been a
decline in the influence on foreign policy of those who follow Roosevelt's
course for cooperation among peace-loving countries. Such persons in the
government, in Congress, and in the leadership of the Democratic party are being pushed farther and farther into the
background. The contradictions in the field of foreign policy existing between
the followers of [Henry] Wallace and [Claude] Pepper, on the one hand, and the
adherents of the reactionary "bi-partisan" policy, on the other, were
manifested with great clarity recently in the speech by Wallace that led to his
resignation from the post of Secretary of Commerce. Wallace's resignation
means the victory of the reactionary course that Byrnes is conducting in
cooperation with Vandenberg and Taft.
3. Obvious indications of the U.S.
effort to establish world dominance are also to be found in the increase in
military potential in peacetime and in the establishment of a large number of
naval and air bases both in the United States and beyond its borders.
In the summer of 1946, for the first
time in history of the country, Congress passed a law on the establishment
of a peacetime army, not on a volunteer basis but on the basis of universal
military service. The size of the army, which is supposed to amount to
about one million persons as of July 1, 1947, was also increased significantly.
The size of the navy at the conclusion of the war decreased quite
insignificantly in comparison with war time. At the present time, the American
navy occupies first place in the world, leaving England's navy far behind, to
say nothing of those of other countries.
Expenditures on the army and navy
have risen colossally, amounting to 13 billion dollars according to the budget
for 1946-47 (about 40 percent of the total budget of 36 billion dollars). This
is more than ten times greater than corresponding expenditures in the budget
for 1938, which did not amount to even one billion dollars.
Along with maintaining a large army,
navy, and air force, the budget provides that these enormous amounts also will
be spent on establishing a very extensive system of naval and air bases in the
Atlantic and Pacific oceans. According to existing official plans, in the
course of the next few years 228 bases, points of support, and radio
stations are to be constructed in the Atlantic Ocean and 258 in the Pacific.
A large number of these bases and points of support are located outside the
boundaries of the United States. In the Atlantic Ocean bases exist or are under
construction in the following foreign island territories: Newfoundland,
Iceland, Cuba, Trinidad, Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Zores,
and many others; in the Pacific Ocean: former Japanese mandated territories-the
Marianas, Caroline and Marshall Islands, Bonin, Ryukyu, Philippines, and the
Galapagos Islands (they belong to Ecuador).
The establishment of American bases
on islands that are often 10,000 to 12,000 kilometers from the territory of the
United States and are on the other side of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans
clearly indicates the offensive nature of the strategic concepts of the
commands of the U.S. army and navy. This interpretation is also confirmed by
the fact that the American navy is intensively studying the naval approaches to
the boundaries of Europe. For this purpose, American naval vessels in the
course of 1946 visited the ports of Norway, Denmark, Sweden Turkey, and Greece.
In addition, the American navy is constantly operating the Mediterranean Sea.
All of these facts show clearly that
a decisive role in the realization of plans for world dominance by the United
States is played by its armed forces.
4. a) One
of the stages in the achievement of dominance over the world by the United
States is its understanding with England concerning the partial division of the
world on the basis of mutual concessions. The basic lines of the secret
agreement between the United States and England regarding the division of the
world consists, as shown by facts, in their agreement on the inclusion of Japan
and China in the sphere of influence of the United States in the Far East,
while the United States, for its part, has agreed not to hinder England either
in resolving the Indian problem or in strengthening its influence in Siam and
Indonesia.
b) In connection with this division,
the United States at the present time is in control of China and Japan without
any interference from England.
The American policy in China is striving for the complete
economic and political submission of China to the control of American
monopolistic capital. Following this policy, the American government does not
shrink from interference in the internal affairs of China. At the present time
in China, there are more than 50,000 American soldiers. In a number of cases,
American Marines participated directly in military operations against the
people's liberation forces. The so-called "mediation" mission of
General [George] Marshall is only a cover for interference in the internal
affairs of China.
How far the policy of the American government
has gone with regard to China is indicated by the fact that at present it is
striving to effect control over China's army. Recently, the U.S. administration
submitted to Congress a bill on military assistance to China that provided for
the complete reorganization of the Chinese army, its training with the aid of
U.S. military instructors, and its supply with American weapons and equipment.
For the purpose of carrying out this program in China, an American consultative
mission including army and naval officers would be sent to China.
China is gradually being transformed
into a bridgehead for the American armed forces. American air bases are located
all over its territory. The main ones are found in Peking, Tsingtao, Tientsin,
Nanking, Shanghai, Chendu, Chungking, and Kunming.
The main American naval base in China is located in Tsingtao. The headquarters
of the 7th Fleet is also there. In addition more than 30,000 U.S. Marines are
concentrated in Tsingtao and its environs. The measures carried out in northern
China by the American army show that it intends to stay there for a long time.
In Japan, despite the presence there of only a small contingent of
American troops, control is in the hands of the Americans. Although English
capital has substantial interests in the Japanese economy, English foreign
policy toward Japan is conducted in such a way as not to hinder the Americans
from carrying out their penetration of the Japanese national economy and
subordinating it to their influence. In the Far Easter Commission in Washington
and in the Allied Council in Tokyo, the English representatives as a rule make
common cause with the U.S. representative conducting this policy.
Measures taken by the American
occupational authorities in the area of domestic policy and intended to support
reactionary classes and groups, which the United States plans to use in the
struggle against the Soviet Union, also meet with a sympathetic attitude on the
part of England.
c) The United States follows a
similar line with regard to the English sphere of influence in the Far East.
Recently, the United States has ceased the attempts it has made over the past
year to influence the resolution of Indian questions. Lately there have
been frequent instances in which the reputable American press, more or less
faithfully reflecting the official policy of the U.S. government, has made
positive statements with regard to the English in India. American
foreign policy also did not hinder British troops in joint action with the
Dutch army from suppressing the national liberation movement in Indonesia.
Moreover, there have been instances in which the United States facilitated this
British imperialist policy, handing over American weapons and equipment to the
English and Dutch troops in Indonesia, sending Dutch naval personnel from the
United States to Indonesia, etc.
5. a) If
the division of the world in the Far East between the United States and England
may be considered an accomplished fact, it cannot be said that an analogous
situation exists in the basin of the Mediterranean Sea and in the countries
adjacent to it. Rather, the facts indicate that an agreement of this sort has
not yet been reached in the region of the Near East and the Mediterranean Sea.
The difficulty experienced by the United States and England in reaching an
agreement over this region derives from the fact that concessions on the part
of England to the United States in the Mediterranean basin would be fraught
with serious consequences for the whole future of the British Empire, for which
the basin exceptional strategic and economic significance. England would have
nothing against using American armed forces and influence in this region,
directing them northward against the Soviet Union. The United States, however,
is not interested in providing assistance and support to the British Empire in
this vulnerable point, but rather in its own more thorough penetration of the
Mediterranean basin and Near East, to which the United States is attracted by
the area's natural resources, primarily oil.
b) In recent years American capital
has penetrated very intensively into the economy of the Near Eastern countries,
in particular into the oil industry. At present there are American oil
concessions in all of the Near Eastern countries that have oil deposits (Iraq,
Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia). American capital, which made its
first appearance in the oil industry of the Near East only in 1928, now
controls about 42 percent of all proven reserves in the Near East, excluding
Iran. Of the total proven reserves of 26.8 billion barrels, over 11 billion
barrels are owned by U.S. concessions. Striving to ensure further development
of their concessions in different countries (which are often very large-Saudi
Arabia, for example), the American oil companies plan to build a trans-Arabian
pipeline to transport oil from the American concession in Saudi Arabia and in
other countries on the southeastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea to ports in
Palestine and Egypt.
In expanding in the Near East,
American capital has English capital as its greatest and most stubborn
competitor. The fierce competition between them is the chief factor preventing
England and the United States from reaching an understanding on the division of
spheres of influence in the Near East, a division that can occur only at the
expense of direct British interests in this region.
Palestine is an example of the very
acute contradictions in the policy of the United States and England in the Near
East. The United States has been displaying great initiative there of late,
creating many difficulties for England, as in the case of the U.S. demand that
100,000 Jews from Europe be permitted to enter Palestine. The American
interest in Palestine, outwardly expressed as sympathy for the Zionist cause,
actually only signifies American capital wishes to interfere in Palestinian
affairs and thus penetrate the economy. The selection of a port in Palestine as
on of the terminal points of the American oil
pipeline explains a great deal regarding the foreign policy of the United
States on the Palestine question.
c) The irregular nature of relations
between England and the United States in the Near East is manifested in part
also in the great activity of the American naval fleet in the eastern part
of the Mediterranean Sea. Such activity cannot help but be in conflict with
the basic interests of the British Empire. These actions on the part of the
U.S. fleet undoubted are also linked with American oil and other economic
interests in the Near East.
It must be kept in mind, however,
that incidents such as the visit by the American battleship Missouri to
the Black Sea straits, the visit of the American fleet to Greece, and the great
interest that the U.S. diplomacy displays in the problem of the straits have a
double meaning. On the one hand, they indicate that the United States has
decided to consolidate its position in the Mediterranean basin to support its
interests in the countries of the Near East and that it has selected the navy
as the tool for this policy. On the other hand, these incidents constitute a
political and military demonstration against the Soviet Union. The
strengthening of U.S. positions in the Near East and the establishment of
conditions for basing the American navy at once or more points on the
Mediterranean Sea (Trieste, Palestine, Greece, Turkey)
will therefore signify the emergence of a new threat to the security of the
southern regions of the Soviet Union.
6.) Relations
between the United States and England are determined by two basic
circumstances. On the one hand, the United States regards England as its
greatest potential competitor; on the other hand, England constitutes a
possible ally for the United States. Division of certain regions of the
globe into spheres of influence of the United States and England would
create the opportunity, if not for preventing competition between them, which
is impossible, then at least of reducing it. At the same time, such a division
facilitates the achievement of economic and political cooperation between them.
b) England needs American credits
for reorganizing its economy, which was disrupted by the war. To obtain such
credits, England is compelled to make significant concessions. This is the significance
of the loan that the United States recently granted England. With the aid
of the loan, England can strengthen it economy. At
the same time this loan opens the door for American capital to penetrate the
British Empire. The narrow bounds in which the trade of the so-called Sterling
Bloc has found itself in the recent past have expanded at the present time and
provide an opportunity for the Americans to trade with British dominions,
India, and other countries of the Sterling Bloc (Egypt, Iraq, and Palestine).
c) The political support that the
United States provides for England is very often manifested in the
international events of the postwar period. At recent international conferences
the United State and England have closely coordinated their policies,
especially in cases when they had to oppose the policy of the Soviet Union. The
United States provided moral and political assistance to England in the
latter's reactionary policy in Greece, India, and Indonesia. American and
English policy is fully coordinated with regard to the Slavic and other
countries adjoining the Soviet Union. The most important demarches of the
United States and England in these countries after the end of the war were
quite similar and parallel in nature. The policy of the United State and
England in the Security Council of the United Nations (particularly in
questions concerning Iran, Spain, Greece, the withdrawal of foreign troops from
Syria and Lebanon, etc.) has the same features of coordination.
d) The ruling circles of the United
States obviously have a sympathetic attitude toward the idea of a military
alliance with England, but at the present time the mater
has not yet culminated in an official alliance. Churchill's speech in Fulton
calling for the conclusion of an Anglo-American military alliance for the
purpose of establishing joint domination over the world was therefore not
supported officially by Truman or Byrnes, although Truman by his presence
[during the "Iron Curtain" speech] did indirectly sanction
Churchill's appeal.
Even if the United States does not
go so far as to conclude a military alliance with England just now, in practice
they still maintain very close contact on military questions. The combined
Anglo-American headquarters in Washington continues to exist, despite the fact
that over a year has passed since the end of the war. Frequent personal contact
continues among leading military figures of England and the United States. The
recent trip of Field Marshal Montgomery to America is evidence of this contact.
It is characteristic that as a result of his meetings with leading military
figures of the United States, Montgomery announced that the English army
would be structured on the American model Cooperation is also carried out between
the navies of the two countries. In this connection it is sufficient to
note the participation of the English navy in recent maneuvers by the American
navy in the Mediterranean Sea and the participation by the American navy in the
North Sea in autumn of this year.
e) The current relations between
England and the United States, despite the temporary attainment of agreements
on very important questions, are plagued with great internal contradictions
and cannot be lasting.
The economic assistance from the
United States conceals within itself a danger for England in many respects.
First of all, in accepting the loan, England finds herself in a certain
financial dependence on the United States from which it will not be easy to
free herself. Second, it should be kept in mind that the conditions created by
the loan for the penetration by American capital of the British Empire can
entail serious political consequences. The countries included in the British
Empire or dependent on it may - under economic pressure from powerful American
capital - reorient themselves toward the United States, following in this
respect the example of Canada, which more and more is moving away from the
influence of England and orienting itself toward the United States. The
strengthening of American position in the Far East could stimulate a similar
process in Australia and New Zealand. In the Arabic countries of the Near East,
which are striving to emancipate themselves from the British Empire, there are
groups within the ruling circles that would not be averse to working out a deal
with the United States. It is quite possible that the Near East will become a
center of Anglo-American contradictions that will explode the agreements
now reached between the United States and England.
7. a) The "hard-line" policy with regard to the USSR
announced by Byrnes after the rapprochement of the reactionary Democrats with
the Republicans is at present the main obstacle on the road to cooperation of
the Great Powers. It consists mainly of the fact that in the postwar period the
United States no longer follows a policy of strengthening cooperation among the
Big Three (or Four) but rather has striven to undermine the unity of these
countries. The objective has been to impose the will of other
countries on the Soviet Union. This is precisely the tenor of the policy of
certain countries, which is being carried out with the blessing of the United
States, to undermine or completely abolish the principle of the veto in
the Security Council of the United Nations. This would give the United States
opportunities to form among the Great Powers narrow groupings and blocs
directed primarily against the Soviet Union, and thus to split the United
Nations. Rejection of the veto by the Great powers would transform the United
Nations into an Anglo-Saxon domain in which the United States would play the
leading role.
b) The present
policy of the American government with regard to the USSR is also direct at
limiting or dislodging the influence of the Soviet Union from neighboring
countries. In implementing this policy in former enemy or Allied countries
adjacent to the USSR, the United States attempts, at various international
conferences or directly in these countries themselves, to support reactionary
forces with the purpose of creating obstacles to the process of
democratization of these countries. In so doing, it also attempts to secure
positions for the penetration of American capital into their economies.
Such a policy is intended to weaken and overthrow the democratic governments in
power there, which are friendly toward the USSR , and
replace them in the future with new governments that would obediently carry out
a policy dictated from the United States. In this policy, the United States
receives full support from English diplomacy.
c) One of the most important
elements in the general policy of the United States, which is directed toward
limiting the international role of the USSR in the post war world, is the policy
with regard to Germany. In Germany, the United States is taking measures to
strengthen reactionary forces for the purpose of opposing democratic
reconstruction. Furthermore, it displays special insistence on accompanying
this policy with completely inadequate measures for the demilitarization of
Germany.
The American occupation policy does
not have the objective of eliminating the remnants of German Fascism and
rebuilding German political life on a democratic basis, so that Germany
might cease to exist as an aggressive force. The United States is not taking
measures to eliminate the monopolistic associations of German
industrialists on which German Fascism depended in preparing aggression and
waging war. Neither is any agrarian reform being conducted to eliminate
large landholders, who were also a reliable support for the Hitlerites.
Instead, the United States is considering the possibility of terminating the
Allied occupation of German territory before the main tasks of the
occupation-the demilitarization and democratization of Germany-have been an
imperialist Germany, which the United States plans to use in a future war on
its side. One cannot help seeing that such a policy has a clearly outlined anti-Soviet
edge and constitutes a serious danger to the cause of peace.
d) The numerous and extremely
hostile statements by American government, political, and military figures with
regard to the Soviet Union and its foreign policy are very characteristic of
the current relationship between the ruling circles of the United States and
the USSR. These statements are echoed in an even more unrestrained tone by the
overwhelming majority of the American press organs. Talk about a "third
war," meaning a war against the Soviet Union, even a direct call for
this war - with the threat of using the atomic bomb- such is the content of the
statements on relations with the Soviet Union by reactionaries at public
meetings and in the press. At the present time, preaching war against he Soviet Union is not a monopoly of the far-right, yellow
American press represented by the newspaper associations of Hearst and
McCormick. This anti-Soviet campaign also has been joined by the
"reputable" and "respectable" organs of the conservative
press, such as the New York Times and New York Herald Tribune.
Indicative in this respect are the numerous articles by Walter Lippmann in
which he almost undisguisedly calls on the United States to launch a strike
against the Soviet Union in the most vulnerable areas of the south and
southeast of the USSR.
The basic goal of this anti-Soviet
campaign of American "public opinion" is to exert political pressure
on the Soviet Union and compel it to make concessions. Another, no less
important goal of the campaign is the attempt to create an atmosphere of war
psychosis among the masses, who are weary of war, thus making it easier for
the U.S. government to carry out measure for the maintenance of high military
potential. It was in this very atmosphere that the law on universal military
service in peacetime was passed by congress, that the huge military budget was
adopted, and that plans are being worked out for the construction of an
extensive system of naval and air bases.
e) Of course, all of these measures
for maintaining a highly military potential are not goals in themselves. They
are only intended to prepare the conditions for winning world supremacy
in a new war, the date for which, to be sure, cannot be determined now by
anyone, but which is contemplated by the most bellicose circles of American
imperialism.
Careful note should betaken of the fact that the preparation by the United
State for a future is being conducted with the prospect of war against the
Soviet Union, which in the eyes of the American imperialists is the main
obstacle in the path of the United States to world domination. This is
indicated by facts such as the tactical training of the American army for war
with the Soviet Union as the future opponent, the siting of American strategic
bases in regions from which it is possible to launch strikes on Soviet
territory, intensified training and strengthening of Arctic regions as close
approaches to the USSR, and attempts to prepare Germany and Japan to use those
countries in a war against the USSR.
[signed]
N. Novikov