Don't Use East-West to Describe the Soviet Union and Russia vis-a-vis others
Don't Use East-West to Describe the Soviet Union and Russia vis-a-vis others
When lazy framing is easy but misleading and possibly injurious
Words matter. They shape how we define and understand the world. If sloppily used, they can be misleading, even injurious, to the thing being described. I’ve written about the “propaganda of propaganda” where the mere use of the word can be an act of intentional and negative influence, or, in other words, propaganda as the term is commonly used.1 A phrase that is more commonly used is East-West to describe the former Soviet Union (aka the most recent Russian empire) vis-a-vis others, namely the United States and allied nations, sometimes also called the “Free World.”
Framing the US, Western Europe, and elsewhere as the “West” always bothered me, even when I started studying international relations in college in 1986.2 Just today, I read something written this week about Russia versus the “West” and had to roll my eyes. Instead of me explaining why we shouldn’t use the “East-West” labeling, I’ll let someone explain since they did a better job than I could:
In the first place, use of this term in such phrases as “East-West relations”, “East-West contacts”, etc., implies that the Soviet Union is the representative, or spokesman, of the entire East — all of Asia at least. This is not true; but it is a concept the Soviets will do all possible to promote, and we give them gratuitous help by reiterating a phrae that tends to confirm it.
In the second place, in the context of current rivalry, there is a tendency for us to give a deprecatory content to the “East” half of the equation. This is not always palatable to our Asian friends, even though the more sophisticated are aware that they are “Easterners” in a different sense.
In addition, when this term or an equivalent is used we are really trying to express a contrast between two systems, not two geographic entities. With the phrase cited, the connotation is thus inaccurate as well as disadvantageous.
I realise that a term so embedded in current usage, and one so convenient, is not easy to change., It would also be difficult to find an equivalent that would have the proper semantic flavor but not be long and clumsy. Further, the concept so often comes into play in contexts where an invidious connotation would be undesirable, that it would probably be impractical to encourage the wide use of such terms as “communist-free world contacts”.
Despite the above difficulties, it might, it might be worth trying to introduce more appropriate terminology. If a satisfactory single-phrase equivalent could not be found, multiple substitutes might be tried. For example, “East-West contacts” could be “Communist contacts” — looking from our side of the picture; “East-West relations” might be “relations with the Soviets” or “…with the communist bloc”; the “East-West conflict” would perhaps be “communist-free world conflict”, since an invidious touch would be less out of place in a framework of “conflict”. Various other alternatives could doubtless be found.
Perhaps the simplest approach would be re-name those areas where the phrase is a matter of official terminology—such as “East-West Contacts Staff”; to direct departmental officers to avoid the term wherever possible, and use those substitutes appearing most appropriate to them; and to encourage senior officials to take particular care, in preparing material likely to reach a mass audience, to use alternative phrasing with the hope it might gradually be taken over by non-governmental media.
The author was Gerard Smith, then Director of Policy Planning at the State Department. This is from his memo to Secretary of State Christian Herter in early February 1960. Herter approved Smith’s recommendation.
The Operations Coordinating Board (OCB) communicated the recommendation to the members of its working groups (basically representatives of every agency directly or indirectly involved with covert activities) in a memo dated March 9, 1960. As alternatives to the “East-West” framing, OCB’s Bromley Smith suggested…
…using instead such terms as appear most appropriate to them, such as, “Communist contacts,” “relations with the Soviets,” or “…with the communist bloc,” “Free World-Communist conflict.”
The next month, Charles Bohlen, then head of the Bureau of Soviet Affairs at the State Department, noted he had “been concerned about the implications of this term for at least ten years and have also sought some workable substitute.” It was probably too late to make a change, since, he wrote, it was “part of the agenda for the forthcoming summit.” That summit, set for May 1960, never happened due to the U-2 spy plane incident. As for an alternative, like “Communist-free world,” Bohlen’s mind was clearly on the summit when he wrote that “obviously would not be acceptable to the USSR,” a remarkable (and ill-placed) deference. Despite his support and frustration with the term, he offered tepid, tempered support for Smith’s recommendation: “Though I do not therefore see how many of your suggestions can be acted upon now, I agree they should be kept in mind for the future.”
In the archives, I did not find indications that Smith’s memo, as approved by the Secretary of State, caused any noticable shift in framing or broader narrative.
Terms of reference matter. But they are our terms, and they generally don’t need to be acceptable by the “other side.” An example of a term that we can accurately use to label the same exact activity in different circumstances is “public diplomacy.” In one situation, it’s an innocent conversation about the US, in another, the exact script may be viewed as political warfare by an illiberal government. That doesn’t mean we change how we describe the activity, even if the latter is by design and intent.
The Parting Shot
Another cycling picture, this one from a (former) local ride on my gravel bike.
The focus of that post was on the scholarly researchers writing about US efforts to communicate abroad, including anti- and counter-disinformation and -misinformation efforts. These researchers, publishing in law reviews and elsewhere, imply that any communication is propaganda, with the further implication that “propaganda” is inherently wrong as they build their strawman around statutory analysis (analyses that are typically inaccurate, some worse than others). Most of these researchers fail to disinguish between intent, method, truth, or any other attribute of the communication.
Fun fact: Writing a research paper on JFK’s role in the Vietnam War, I looked at the English edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia in my university’s library. I had a tough time anything about the conflict, which surprised me. Then I found what I was looking for. The entry I wanted wasn’t anywhere near V, it was under “A,” for “American Aggression in Vietnam.” I still laugh at that.
Probably important to note that the "East-West" terminology is deeply rooted in American obeisance to a British world-view.
This extends beyond the terms we use for the Soviet Union and Russia.
"Near East, Middle East, Far East" only makes sense in terms relative to the British Isles.
Americans should not adhere to British terminology.
Much better terms for all those regions, whether they are couched in absolute geographical references (Asia Minor, Arabian Peninsula, Levant, Pacific Rim, Southeast Asia, Eurasia), or in terms relative to America (Near West for Japan and China), Americans should reject the Britishisms, as we did in 1776 and 1814.
lol at “A” for “Vietnam”