and its allies, fully confirms Aldridge's founding principles of the was signed in April 1949 by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, (ortunal, tain and the USA. That same year the West German state was created. It joined NATO in 1955. Greece, Turkey and Spain are also now members.
The treaty peamble lays down that member states 'desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage civilisation of their people founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. promote stability and well-being in the North Altantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts defence and for the preservation of peace and security.' Nothing could be further from the truth. That statement is a total sham. heritage and individua liberty give a Only clue to its real purpose: communist military alliance to further the economic and political interests of the maior imperialst dowers. It is not commonly known, but at that time the Soviet Union applied to join NATO sand was refused admission.
The Warsaw Pact was not established until 1955, six years later, and then only after the Soviet Union had attempted unsuccessfully to oppose West Geriman rearmament. It was NATO, from militarisation of Europe.
West economic and social resources prosecute protect itself from central Europe.
United States this was arsenal.
For MAD. In was based largely being tion but the US would not.
As the Soviet NATO strategy changed.
North Atlantic adonted a policv known as response'.
the Bri- plans to this day. But, They seek to Conve lal neither, of course, States. collective USSR would deaths in prolonged cept it.
Nazi Germany, antino possibility must have nuclear weapons. The secenle renon than the 1950s onwards, that insisted on the The USSR's first response to the formation of NATO was to attempt to secure a demilitarised mid-Europe. An than underdeveloped country in comparison Europe and the USA, the of the 1I0E Soviet Union had been heavily depleted weighs by World War II. Far from wishing to policy of aggression towards the capitalist West, the Soviet United government's primary concern was to inasion by those powers, especially the United States. In the 1940s and 1950s it put forward a West number of proposals to demilitarise flushed From the start, the response of the waSO base muced weapons in Western Europe Initially carried out by means ilateral treaties with its NATO allie Then, in 1955, the alliance as a whole agreed to equip its forces with a nuclear NATO's initial policies were crude. tional During the 1950s and '60s its strategy was officially 'massive retaliation' knows as mutually assured destruction, other words blast the enemy with everything you've got. This on the assumption the that the USSR did not have sufficient delivery systems to launch a full-scale nuclear retaliation against the USA. Far 'mutually assured', the calculation was that USSR and Western Europe might suffer nuclear annihilaUnion's nuclear surengin incicasca to une pomt wacic i could carry out a devastating nuclear retaliation against the United States, Treaty Organisation 'flexible That remains the basis for the North Atlantic allies war-tighting whatever the USSR specific changes, one point always reNATO'S military strategy is based on nuclear weapons.
There are two reasons for this. First the Soviet Union cannot be attacked wcdbun can the United A conventional attack on the 30-40 million fighting. The Europe in which the workers movement had been utterly crushed, could attack the Soviet Union with conventional arms. Unless it is capable of imposing fascism throughout the West out (and probably not even then), there is of any conventional war tain against the USSR being successful. To carry out an aggressive policy NATO economic.
While there is continuous and correct, denunciation of the cost of nuclear weapons, in reality they are far cheaper Many conventional of equivalent destructive power. One of the reasons the West stresses its nuclear plans is that it is cynically prepared to confront the world with nuclear annihilation rather bear the cost of conventional weapons. more precisely, only on the Soviet down on the ability of capitalist OUWCS to compete each other. That can be seen in the States VaNL budget Nuclear weapons mean 'a bigger bomb for your buck.
After Rekyavik the real policy of the on nuclear weapons has VuL into the 'Multilateralism' is a fraud from beginning to end. The West is not interested in the elimination of nuclear weapons. Unlaleransm and mulhlaleransı dıc not different roads to the same goal. The West wants nuclear "weapons. USSR does not. The Soviet Union has no need of a nuclear arsenal because it is in no position to launch a convenattack on the anymore conventional armies.
The purpose of 'multilateralism' is simple. One question that is never asked in the opinion polls is 'do you favour elimination of weapons?' Everyone knows the answer would be an overwhelming 'yes'. working class has no interest whatever in aving - - either to allow Western imBy putting forward proposals for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, Gorbachev is doing exactly the right thing. In the 1970s, under Brezhnev, the adopted an adventurist militarist strategy for dealing with the arms race. It attempted to compete, when it could not possibly win. NATO powers have twice the population, and seven times the gross national product of the Soviet Union. The only policy which can work for the USSR is puts necessity bulding military defence within the framework of struggle against the military policy of the West. That means the USSR must expose the truth: it is the Western powers alone that threaten the world with nuclear annihilation, Western alone that have aggressive ambitions in Rekyavik gave Labour the opportunity to expound a wholly coherent defence policy, starting with full support for the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons. Labour should point that multilatelalsi had shown up as a total fraud, therefore Briwas unilaterally abandoning nuclear weaDons That is coherent, credible, and the truth. It is based on what Reykjavik began to expose: the fact that only the West wants the bomb. That is the truth Labour should build on. That is what makes a unilateral nuclear disarmament defence policy coherent. AMID GRAND long-awaited campaign was launched last week by Neil and Denzil Davies. It was an instant flop.
Modern Britain in a Modern World lay a position which is impossible to defend.
As The Country policy statement explains, the Soviet hordes by 'strengthening Britain's conventional defences' and by 'modernising Labour leadership's priorities is more guns and more tanks. This goes hand in hand with a renewed commitment to the North Atlantic alliance. "As long as the Soviet threat to Western Europe,' says the introduction to the defence statement, 'we need a strong NATO.' Only then does the leadership address itself, entirely inadequately, the question of getting rid of nuclear weapons. out-of-date. *Just as the credibility of NATO's strategy of the 1950s (known as 'massive retaliation') was thrown into doubt by development of strategic parity between the USA and USSR, so today the strategy of the 1960s (known as 'flexible response') had been thrown into doubt by development of parity at lower levels.
In the 1983 Margaret Thatcher with the Labour government would leave Britain defenceless'. deficit. again the enemy', that we 'Soviet menace, the Labour leadershir has stepped squarely back onto that same terrain. Instead of campaigning been for Labour's unilateral nuclear disaropen. mament policies, heading into the next general election apologising for them.
The The British Party's editorial on 11 December cerns how far it stands up as a serious statement of defence policy. The other is about the likely effect on Labour's electoral chances.' answer to the first question. And as far as ine Financial Labour Party 'is unilaterally disarming nuclear itself'.
The Economist was of the view: The "Labour is trying to steal the government's clothes. demolished Labour's chosen methods for trying to do so: 'Despite Labour's protestations, the awful truth is that nuclear weapons deliver far more bang for their buck than men and machine guns.' In one sense these views are dead right. The last way for Labour to win the argument over defence is by adop ting a cranky version of Tory political thinking.
If the Labour leadership accepts the cold war ideology it possibly persuade the British elec The torate to vote for unilateral nuclear disarmament? If the enemy's ICBMs are pointed at your front door, there's little hope of defending yourself with a rifle or a tank.
Thatcher's arguments are coherent and Labour's aren't. The electorate is perfectly capable of seeing that. And she has already proved herself as Britain's number one cold-warrior.
powers grinder?
The right wing of the Labour movement also understand this argument perfectly well and are stepping up their campaign New Statesman of 5 December carried an editorial which began:
Party must change its defence policy.' been Its editor, John "cannot unilateralism is the best way of achieving its ends because, evidence, it is not' (author's italics).
A week later Robert Maxwell joined the attack. The Sunday Mirror boasted a front-page banner headline 'Let the nation vote on defence'. Maxwell has launched a campaign for a referendum, complete with the address to which letceremony, delence Kinnock, Dennis Healey Beneath the tinsel of Power to Defend Our government would roll back to the right.
Top judged, their poses a potential to The message is that they are government.
compared Wing elected.
tivist remembers general claimed that By accepting yet definition 'the are threatened by a Financial Times understood steady "There are two questions about the strategy • TO years.
' began its
'modified' Not at all was its election was concerned, the government Times concluded that the equally sharply file.
policy point came at HICLCLC of Thatcher and — and it does - then how can 'redefined" four.
reelect organagainst unilateralism.
"The Labour
first.
Lloyd, argued that that convutce Because on the available "defence' policy. campaign cecnce ters of support can be sent, to get Neil Kinnock off the unilateralist hook.
The right wing have no qualms about ditching unilateralism. The only question for them is how? They are every bit as eager as the Tories to mainthough, couldn't done without the risk of blowing UP le fragile balance that has been developed between the right and the 'soft left', allowing the leadership to jerk the party Unilateralism presented a real pro. blem for the project of the party leadership. It was the one issue where they correctly, that any serious moves to abandon policy would blow plans sky high. It was unilateralism more than any other issue which persuaded the rank and file, 1983, to elect Neil Kinnock as a 'left' SCHeNU LIC bOlLY Now the right wing feels the wind in las cank hucrek no carnce winsoeve of the bourgeoisie quietly accepting the of unmalerals The secret services tapping Harold Wilson's phone is nothing to wnat ine rulne would do if there was any chance of a real nuclear disarming government beAt the same time it is getting very close to an election, and every party acwhat happened to Labour in 1983. Not many constituency parties will like the defence campaign, but few will feel in a position to publicly denounce it.
That is why the fundamental contict in Labour policy unilateral nuclear disarmament commitment to the rhetoric of NATO was brought to the forefront in Defence and Security for Britain passed by annual conference in 1984. It is that contradiction which is now allowing the right openly to act. The ground-work has already been laid by erosion of the policies which have been won over the First the long-standing commitment to reduce arms spending has been to the point where shadow spokesperson Denzil Davies stood up in the House of Commons only one week before Modern Britain was launched and declared that a Labour would defence budget, in real terms, for the duration of its office. What he didn't say was that the last seven years of Thatcher, defence spending has risen 20 per cent at today's prices That shift has been accompanied b! an upping of Labour's pro-NATO pro'firm commitment' alliance was restated first in the 1984 memorabie, and most disgusting, higs- statement this year's pary conNeil presidenial speech was splattered with references to our 'friends in the United States' and democracy that NATO artorded protection freedom That same speech saw just the beginning of the frontal .attack unilateralism. US nuclear bases were 1l1 exactly the way that Denic Healey said they should be in the summer of 1984, when he welcomed the publication of Defence and Security for Out of the 130-odd nuclear facilities on British soil and in British waters, Kinnock pledged we'd get rid of This process went one stage further Wednesday last. At the press launch of Modern Britain, Neil Kinnock admitted that nuclear bases could be removed from Britain in a short space of time, but their actual removal would be subject to 'discussions' with the USA.
The truth is that when it comes to a choice between NATO and unilateral nuclear disarmament then every word and every deed of the Labour leadership has shown NATO comes a clear There is ni question that th United: States will accept unilateral 'nuclear disarmament by Britain.
the leadership refuses to challenge cold war positions it cannot come up with any coherent The Modern Britain announced that loud and clear last week. At the Wednesday press Kinnock, Hattersley Davies handed Margaret Thatcher a whopping Xmas present.
SINCE LABOUR Party ference the 'campaign left' of the party has undoubtedly taken the offensive Labour's 'soft left'. The crisis of perspective in the Labour Coordinating Committee (LCC), the main 'soft left' organisation in the Constituency Labour Parties, and in the 'Democratic Left' in the National Organisation Labour Students (NOLS), is quite open. The recent pages Tribune are dominated by debate Socialist Action 19 Dec 1986 con- most recently the the overall against must consolidate its the CLPs, up with the new of trade unions as a whole.
of establishment of Campaign Group News, fits in with development. The left potentially, in Labour's youth organisation, connect radicalism public sector and low paid white collar unions, and use this as a platform in the labour movement from which it can help build up its position in the
----- pull-quotes -----
Western working class would never ac- This is why only a fascist state,
perialism to attack Soviet Union or to keep military costs down.
this. defence published yesterday one con-