Will Soviets Join Fight on Terrorism? : Though They May Benefit Now, They Could Be Hurt Later

Former Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr., remarking on the terrorist offensive against the United States, made a point worth remembering in an address last week at the Naval War College: “Terrorism is an instrument to achieve goals that can’t be attained by ordinary means. It is seen as an effective weapon not just against those who are weak, but also against those who are too strong to be attacked by other means.”

America falls squarely into the ranks of the strong. Frustration over the seeming inability of this country to prevent terrorism against U.S. citizens and servicemen, or to mete out retribution when it occurs, should not blind us to that fact.

The Shias who seized the passengers aboard TWA Flight 847 would dearly love to humble the United States. Yet, while it may be small comfort to the hostages and their families, the hijackers did not act because the United States is a pushover but because they see America as a powerful force in the Middle East. They hoped to gain Washington’s help, however unwilling, in the Shia struggle for political dominance in Lebanon. (They probably were mindful, too, of the exposure that their grievances would get on U.S. television.)

Terrorism poses a clear threat to U.S. national security. It is outrageous that innocent Americans, as well as citizens of other lands, cannot travel without risking murder, mutilation or kidnaping by people aptly described by President Reagan as “barbarians.”

Bad as it is, however, international terrorism does not threaten the survival of the United States. Only the Soviet Union has the power to pose that threat in the foreseeable future, and even the Russians have to think more than twice about committing acts that might escalate into nuclear or conventional war.

The nuclear capabilities of the two great powers are in rough balance. As for a conventional confrontation, the Soviets would be badly outclassed if they were so foolish as to take on U.S. forces in the Central American or Caribbean areas. Adm. Sylvester R. Foley Jr., commander of the Pacific Fleet, told the Naval War College audience last week that, if required, the forces under his command could destroy the Soviet Pacific fleet.

In Europe, Soviet forces are considered superior. But, as long as Moscow has reason to fear that even a non-nuclear attack on Western Europe might trigger nuclear war with America, deterrence is likely to hold.

The American-Soviet rivalry is not purely military, anyway. It extends across the spectrum of economic and political competition. And, in the non-military realm, the Soviets face an imposing list of problems.

Looking toward the East, the Soviet Union faces an economically powerful Japan allied with the United States. The Soviets, always paranoid about China, now must ponder the prospect of a marriage between China’s huge population and modern Japanese and American technology. The resulting nightmares dwarf our legitimate concerns about Marxist inroads in Central America.

In Eastern Europe the Russians face a phalanx of supposed allies who resent Soviet domination--the Polish case being the most extreme. In the event of war with the West, the Poles just might turn their guns against their Russian “comrades.”

At home, Soviet-style communism has proved incapable of moving beyond crude industrialization to the higher, more sophisticated demands of the computer age. Corruption and cynicism are rife, both among the leaders and the led. It is far from obvious that Mikhail S. Gorbachev will be able to turn the country around.

Leftist governments and revolutionary movements in the Third World are happy to get Soviet weapons, but they have learned through unhappy experience that, when it comes to capital investments and trade, the United States and other Western nations are far more valuable partners.

Since military confrontation is too dangerous for the Soviets, and since they are at a disadvantage in straightforward economic and political competition, it should not be surprising that they, too, have been attracted to terrorism.

Few, if any, experts believe that the Russians directly control the international terrorist network, which includes German and French crazies, Iranian death squads, Latin American and Asian extremists and various and sundry Arab groups. However, as outlined in Claire Sterling’s book, “The Terror Network,” there is good reason to believe that the Soviets have provided training to terrorists, as well as logistical support and safe haven in Soviet Bloc countries.

How does the Soviet Union manage to get a free ride on terrorism? Why, with very minor exceptions, have Soviet officials and international travelers not been terrorist targets?

Probably one reason is that terrorists are loath to bite the hand that helps to feed them. Another is that the West is not in the business of promoting anti-Soviet terrorism. Also, it may be that terrorists have little faith that the Soviets would bend to such blackmail.

Skyjackers and other such folks are treated harshly inside the Soviet Union, and the Soviets would be less fastidious than Washington in striking back at anti-Soviet terrorists outside Russia.

Still, the day conceivably will come when the Soviets will join in global efforts to contain the scourge for reasons of their own. There is no shortage of people who harbor deep grievances against the Kremlin. They are found in places like Poland and Afghanistan, among the Soviet Union’s non-Russian ethnic minorities, and the many victims of religious, political and cultural repression. All such groups have sympathizers in emigre communities abroad.

Fortunately for them, the Soviets have managed to avoid the terrorist scourge and may continue to do so. If that’s the case, the Kremlin may continue to feel that, since the United States is “too strong to be attacked by other means,” behind-the-scenes support of international terrorism is the way to go.