(2 of 2)
∙MIDDLE EAST. Five years ago, Columnists Joseph and Stewart Alsop overstated the widespread view that "the most strategically vital region of the modern world has been handed to the Kremlin on a silver platter—with the American Government as a rather conspicuous platter bearer." That once tangible Soviet threat in the Middle East has faded to a still ominous but much less menacing shadow. The recent split of the United Arab Republic has more or less returned Syria to the Western camp. Egypt's Nasser, an "imperialist baiter" until lavish promises of Soviet aid failed to materialize, is busy mending his fences with Britain, France and the U.S. Iraq, though unstable, is ruled by an independent dictator, and Iran is racing to start some long-needed social reforms.
∙LATIN AMERICA. Unquestionably, Communism's biggest success in a decade is Castro's Cuba. Fidel's revolution in the name of social justice has touched a responsive chord among the have-not masses of the Americas. The U.S., recognizing the need for reform, has promised to contribute most of $20 billion toward an "Alliance for Progress," but only an equal awareness by Latin America's own rulers can checkmate Communism on the continent. The fact remains that, so far, Castro's attempts to export his revolution have failed, and he is having serious trouble in his own country.
∙COMMUNISM AT HOME. In its own orbit, Communism is buffeted by conflicting pressures. The Soviet triumph in space was matched by its failure on the ground: 50% of the people are still tied to agriculture, still unable to produce foodstuffs in ample quantity for the population. "Rockets, rockets, rockets —who needs them now!" exploded one letter writer to Komsomolskaya Pravda. "For the time being, to hell with the moon; let me put something better on my dinner table instead."
On the other hand, better food on the dinner table and better consumer goods in the shops—the promise of material progress held out by Khrushchev—are a vision with limited appeal to Soviet youths who never suffered, in the name of the Revolution, the deprivations of the Stalin era. Regardless of the outcome in the struggle between Khrushchev and Chou En-lai over Communist strategy, the Soviet realist knows that he faces a much deeper problem. The issue was raised by Poland's senior Marxist Philosopher Adam Schaff, in response to a student who asked: "Please don't get angry, but what is the meaning of life?" To which Schaff responded by begging for a "socialist humanism"—without which Communism is "sterile and meaningless to the ordinary man."