Deja Vu? Deja Vu? Deja Vu? Deja Vu?

Historical events, or so Karl Marx said, always happen twice: once as tragedy, the second time as farce. These days we are told we are enmeshed in a second Cold War. The Russians are once again out to conquer the entire world, starting with the Moslem tribesmen of Afghanistan. SALT II is off, the MX is on; public opinion polls show a majority of the U.S. population favors increased defense spending for the first time in a long while. Once again the calls go up to arm the anti-Communist dictators, and to hell with human rights, nonproliferation or progressive social change. And of course, there is the ultimate weapon: we'll refuse to compete with Russian runners and pole vaulters. That'll show them.

Where are the progressive forces in the country? The antiwar movement? Why does no one speak out in response to this nonsense? Will no one look to the long run, or try for a more global perspective? Alas, the Iowa caucuses are approaching and considered rational views never bring in the votes.

This is not 1945. Even then, the Cold War was whipped up by the U.S. for domestic political reasons. Not that the Russians were blameless, then or now. But the U.S. when it is hell-bent on confrontation, rarely stops to look at the facts. Before we go too far, we should consider a few points:

1) Contrary to Administration pronouncements, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is not an attack on the U.S. It is an attack on Afghanistan. It is also a warning to the non-aligned nations, a good example of Soviet intentions and attitudes towards national self-determination. Before we go rushing off to confront them, we should consider the effect of our actions on the Third World nations we are supposedly interested in anyway.

2) SALT II is essential to U.S. security. President Carter just a few months ago told treaty opponents he wanted SALT II passed because it was in the U.S. national interest, not a gift to the Soviets. Brezhnev too has been running into attacks from hardliners who don't want arms control. Those who say SALT II will enshrine Soviet superiority fail to say how we will be better off if the treaty is shelved. The arms race will escalate, and the Soviet lead will in all probability widen further. SALT II reigns in the Soviets, and since the U.S. has not been building up its forces for years as the Soviets have, the ceiling we set will force them to make greater sacrifices than it will us. The fact that the Soviets have stretched SALT I provisions as far as possible shows, perversely, that they are unlikely to cheat outright.

3) Detente has not failed: we never really tried it. The Jackson-Vanik amendment (to compel Soviets to let more Jews emigrate) prevented them from gaining favored-nation status in trade, and SALT II was already dead, at least in their eyes, way before Afghanistan. Since they were not getting any benefits from restraint, why should they restrain themselves?

4) The U.S. is not blameless. How can we uphold the holy principle of non-interference after Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, the Dominican Republic, Iran, Chile? CIA-sponsored coups may be more subtle, but they have the same effect as actual invasions.

5) Defense increases and getting in bed with military juntas will not increase U.S. security, let alone improve the international situation. They make right-wing critics happy, but they do not help. The Soviets are threatening the Persian Gulf, we are told, and since the Western oil junkies are dependent on a lifeline of tankers pouring through the Gulf, this is intolerable. The question is: would $20 billion make use more secure if put into more bombs or into intensive research and development of alternatives to oil, like widespread conservation, cogenaration and renewable energy sources? Will propping up the General Zias of the world make us more secure, or improve relations with the Third World? The reason it is so easy for the Soviets to stir up trouble, and to win allies, is because the U.S. defines itself as the keeper of the world order however it happens to exist right now. When the inevitable popular revolutions come, they turn anti-American. Remember Iran? Why must we be saddled with all the losers? As to arming China, or at least providing her with peaceful technology, which--surprise, surprise--she later converts to military uses, it was only a little while ago that the yellow peril was more feared than the Red menace. Who knows if the alliances won't shift once more, and a militarily built-up China will prove more threatening than the Soviets no appear?

6) Showing our toughness is not an alternative. The worst possible outcome would be for the president, prodded by the Reaganites and the Russian and Iranian challenges to his manhood, to invade, blockade or bomb Iran. The hostages would die, anti-American sentiments all over the Mideast and South Asia would explode into violence, perhaps toppling a few shaky regimes and turning Third World condemnation of the Russians (for Afghanistan) and Iran (for hostage-taking) into condemnation of America. And a coordinated Western trade embargo towards Iran and Russia is not really possible. Europe and Japan need the oil, the market for technology. How will economic suicide teach the world we mean business?

The world is different now than when we entered the first Cold War. Five nations have nuclear arsenals, a couple more have the bomb but no way to use it, and a dozen others might get in it a few years. The maintenance of international peace and stability is essential for global survival. We no longer perceive an international Communist conspiracy (we align with the Chinese and are not yet conducting domestic witchhunts) but Sovietophobia is giving domestic reactionaries and demagogues a field day. We can no longer manipulate the Third World as we once did, and so we have to consider their viewpoint, their interests, in our calculations. Perhaps Marxism offers a better alternative path of development than capitalism. Perhaps the multination corporations are more of a threat to them than the Soviets. Perhaps a multi-billion dollar assistance package, and on their terms, not ours, might best advance U.S. support among the Third World, not to mention contribute more to their welfare, than pumping yet more arms around the globe. Maybe even that will not be credible as long as we continue to support the South Africans and keep blacks and Hispanics in a state of second-class citizenship at home. If the oil-rich shieks and the Chinese are so afraid of Russia, let them arm and train the Afghan rebels. Let them get friendly with the Baluchis before the Soviets do.

Obviously, we have good reason to doubt Russia's intentions. But we often paint them as stronger, more internally secure and more expansionist than they really are, while downplaying our own international transgressions and playing up our weaknesses (worst case analysis). Still, before we totally swallow the line of right-wingers, we should consider if building up the military, escalating the arms race, allying with petty dictators, and putting off criticial social programs at home and developmental assistance overseas will make use more secure. It did not work last time, and it has brought us to where we are now. Are we really getting over our post-Vietnam neuroses, or are we being suckered once more? It looks like we're going to need another Sixties in the Eighties.

Eve Cummings is a graduate student in philosophy at Boston University.