The circumventing of Suez and unstable Syria would seem to indicate a quieting down of a situation that threatened the whole world. Demands are less challenged and bluffs are not being called. Also, negotiations are still in session between the United States and Russia over the “ open skies” plan first proposed by President Eisenhower two years ago. Although settlement is far from being reached, Russia’s serious consideration is regarded by U. S. officials as “hopeful.” Russia’s suggestion that all of U. S. west of the Mississippi river be accessible to her in exchange for free skies over Eastern Siberia appeared ludicrous in view o f the unbalanced distribution of population, commerce and civil defences.

President Eisenhower cautiously veiled an optimism that Russia’s consideration o f his disarmament plan might have invoked. The President declared that Russia’s amiableness is due to the fact that she, as well as all the rest of the world, is feeling the pinch” of maintaining these tremendous military organisations.” Harold E. Stassen, the chief executive’s Disarmament Advisor, expressed great hope of a mutual agreement being reached between the two leading nuclear powers. It was clear, however, that the United States would make no major concession in disarming that would threaten her existence, based on the Soviets unsubstantiated promises to abide by the agreement.

The very fact that such a plan has been discussed expresses hope to the world of a more substantial! foundation for further progress in peace. Nuclear warfare, a threat to civilisation itself, is an appalling thought to all people. A scheme to reduce this threat will quite naturally appeal to m an’s inherent urge for survival. A t the same time, such a hope might lull the nations of the world in a false sense o f security, whose cry of “peace and safety” may well, be a prelude to “sudden destruction.”