Phantom Threat

All week long, Moscow's propagandists bellowed charges that the U.S. was egging Turkey on to attack Syria. "No one," declared Tass, "should doubt that if Syria is attacked, the Soviet Union . . . will take all necessary measures."

In an unbelievably clumsy attempt to stir internal dissension, Nikita Khrushchev dispatched "personal" letters to the Socialist Parties of seven Western European nations. "Any widening of the conflict around Syria may drive Britain into the abyss of a new, destructive war, with all is terrible consequences for the population of the British Isles," Khrushchev wrote to Britain's Labor Party. "We hope that plans of organizing military intervention against peaceful Syria . . . will be condemned by the Labor Party." With the sole exception of Italy's fellow-traveling Pietro Nenni, Western Europe's Socialists rebuffed Khrushchev's overtures with scorn. "Given our conviction that it is you who threatens the peace," answered the Dutch Labor Party, "there is no basis for discussion between us."

"To Aleppo!" In the U.N., Syrian Foreign Minister Salah el Bitar, sounding more than ever like a Soviet ventriloquist's dummy, demanded a full-scale debate on "the threat to Syria's security." Said he: "The Turkish troops have apparently been given a slogan, 'To Aleppo!', which they now publicly repeat." Soviet Delegate Andrei Gromyko delightedly expanded the charge: "Apparently," said he, "the intention of the U.S.A. is to employ in Syria the method it resorted to in suppressing the independence of Guatemala." U.S. Delegate Henry Cabot Lodge promptly welcomed "an opportunity for a full airing of the Soviet allegations," and debate was scheduled for this week by an almost unanimous vote of the General Assembly.

The U.S. left no doubt that it stood firm behind Turkey. Secretary of State Dulles warned that a Russian attack on Turkey would invite immediate U.S. retaliation. And, with President Eisenhower's hearty agreement, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan decided to fly to Washington this week for a conference in which the Middle East would figure heavily (see NATIONAL AFFAIRS). Bristled Radio Moscow: "If Eisenhower and Macmillan really want to bring the Middle East back to normal, why don't they invite other countries? Mr. Macmillan's meeting with the President hints at a separate plot by one group of powers against others -in particular, the Soviet Union."

Challenged Leader. In the Arab world there was dismay and chagrin; the Arabs did not want to be near-spectators in any battle of the giants. But the Arabs' inherent divisions still stalled any hope of restored sanity in the Middle East. When Arabia's King Saud tried to organize an emergency conference of all Arab chiefs of state, Egypt's Nasser refused to attend unless everyone else present would accept "positive neutralism" and disown the Eisenhower Doctrine. But Nasser himself was showing signs of alarm over a bellicose Russia throwing its weight around the Middle East. The forces (estimated strength: 1,600 men) which he had sent to Syria was obviously no real contribution to any Syrian defense against possible Turkish attack. More likely, most Arabs guessed, Nasser was trying no regain some leadership in the Arab world, and perhaps prevent any further increase of Soviet influence in Syria.

Oddly enough, in Syria everything was quiet. For all its shrill cries of alarm, the Syrian government had not bothered to strengthen the relatively small force that it normally maintains on the Turkish border. But other Arabs pointed nervously to the fact that U.S. diplomats have declined to tell inquiring Arab governments just what the U.S. would do if Turkey attacked Syria. Their worries were fed by reports from London and Paris that a secret U.S. document bearing on Ambassador Loy Henderson's emergency tour of the Middle East last August had been lost or stolen. Speculation was that the report had fallen into Russian hands and its contents twisted to serve Russian interpretation.

Running Sore. All this led to Arab talk that the U.S. was indeed planning to use Turkey as its instrument in overthrowing the Syrian government. As Arabs envisaged it, Turkey might launch an attack in support of an uprising against the pro-Soviet Syrian government. The U.S. would publicly deplore it. But before the U.N. could force a Turkish withdrawal, the Syrian regime would be destroyed.

For a generation Syria has been a running sore on the face of the Middle East, and it was no secret that the U.S. would be glad to see the present government replaced by one that was stable and pro-Western. So would King Saud, who at week's end was trying to get Turkey and Syria to accept his mediation of their quarrel.

Flourishing his Sputnik, Nikita Khrushchev was apparently trying for a different kind of stability -a regime totally committed to Russia. If Khrushchev could scare the Arab world enough with the phantom of the terrible Turk, he could justify the stockpiling of even more arms in Syria, and convert it into a forward base for subversion of the entire Middle East.

But Khrushchev may have pushed his war of nerves too far. Last week there was increasing Arab resentment against a nation that would callously play on Arab emotions and flaunt the danger of war to achieve its own ends.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.