Continuing our discussion of the results of the general election and its lessons for the future we turn the peace movement. mond O'Neill argues that the switch by prominent CND leaders away unilateral disarmament to a policy of freeze marks a shift that will have to be fought by the ranks of CND. E.P. THOMPSON, writing in last week's Statesman, has the unique distinction of being the only prominent peace paigner to praise Healey's contribution to the cause of nuclear disarmament during the campaign.
could Thompson put himself in the ridiculous position of defending the Labour leader who, along with James Callaghan, did most to destroy Labour's campaign and the credibility of its disarmament policy?
The reason is straightforward. Thompson argues that unilateralism was a vote-loser and irrelevant to the peace movement: 'Only a few fundamentalists of the Labour left wished to fight on an abstract 'unilateralist-versusmultilateralist' platform ...' So for E.P. Thompson Labour's unwateranst policy was a sectarian diversion from the real issues in the Across the whole country. and most of all in Scotland and Wales, if one conects to one lump Ine voles Sporting Liberal, Redclear peace majority?
nuclear popular front of Thatcher forces' the SDP this way then of course:
cam- mitting Dennis says.
taken seriously point is that in the Trident against the Tories.
This strategy both nuclear sistently without explaining the for parties opposing Trident and supSDP, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Ecologists, etc — then there was a Thompson believes the failure of the election campaign was that peace antiwas divided by the leftist, unilateralist 'fundamentalism' of Labour and the 'factionalism' of the Guardian If the election is approached in 'He (Dennis Healey) was not compremeditated treason but simply making the point that there is no original virtue in unilateralism for unilateralism's pure sake,' Thompson Thompson's views have to be Witnin peace movement because he undoubtedly spaders hop an Cornis esential essential election CND should have tried to unite all parlies who supported a 'freeze' and opposed was rejected by the CND National Council prior to the election. Instead the Council decided to concentrate on cruise and Trident and, at the same time, use the election as an opportunity to explain CND'S full unilateralist position. The reason for this is that it is impossible to conobnose cruise and Trident that weapons, as such, saowa be opposeu Following the election, it is quite clear that Thompson and those who support him will be seeking to change entire policy and direction of Already he is orepared to pas over the Alliance's firm sapport for cruise missiles. He is prepared to accept crußse in order to get on speaking terms with Owen and Steel. This is the most abject betrayal of the work of CND and of Thompson himself over the past three years. It is a betrayal of the women at Greenham Common and of the entire European peace movement.
In exchange Thompson accepts feeble Alliance manifesto to 'explore the opportunities for a verifiable, freeze on the production and deployment of nuclear weapons.' Given that the SDP split from the Labour Party because of the 'gang of four's' support for cruise and opposition to unilateralism, we can imagine the effectiveness of the kind 'freeze' Steel and Owen have in mind!
But, leaving aside for the moment Thompson's 'popular front' strategy as he calls it, is there a case for the CND making the 'freeze' its priority in the years to come?
The demand for a nuclear freeze was brought to the fore by the massive development of the peace movement in the United States. On 12 June last year one million Americans marched in New York demanding a nuclear This mass movement, in Reagan's frontyard, was recognised socialists bcale campaigners everywhere as an enormously gressive development, demonstration of the truly international character of the peace movement.
Understandably its demands were considerably less advanced than those of the European HCACCOYCLCU which are predominantly unilateralist nuclear free Europe from Poland to Portugal.' But this movement was a first step in the development of a mass nuclear disarmament movement in the heart of the USA itself.
Its demand for a 'mutual freeze on the testing, production, and deptoyment of nuclear weapons and missiles and new aircraft designed primart! to deliver nuclear weapons' barrier to the Reagan adminstration's plans to deploy 'First missiles, cruise and Trident.
However the politicians who have taken the leadership of this huge mass movement are not at all committed to nuclear disarmament. For example the Democratic Party ports was the Democratic administration of mutual Jimmy Carter which spiral of nuclear rearmament which Reagan is now putting into effect.
The campaign financed (to the tune of 20 million dollars so far) by such people as the Rockefeller children. of this year worded so as to avoid any timescale being proposed. campaign is opposed to any unilateral steps by the USA towards achieving such a freeze, for example suspending MX or Pershing Il production. In the future it will be around issues such as Ludl the Democratic mongers will be challenged within the American freeze movement.
been adopted by the CND National Council by around it is being launched by the World Disarmament Campaign and pro- the United Nations Association. Andropov has recently called for a fivepower nuclear freeze.
Thompson and others is that CND in Britain adopts 'freeze' campaign. They unilateralist freeze by Britain let alone unilateral nuclear disarmament. They mean the international campaign for a 'mutual freeze'.
CND to adopt this slogan as its main priority. It would be a retreat from its unilateralist policy which at present gives coherence to its opposition to cruise, Trident, American bases and Polaris.
nitiative away from acal of millions in Earope into the hands of Soviet, American, British MX and trench governments. Because, there will be no freeze. David Owen, simply Reagan and verbally supwhile in reality The initiated the Europe. organised and The 'freeze' resolution to the U.S.
was carefully to be of the leadership pseudo-peaceIn Britain the "freeze' demand has aftermath major campaign them But what is being proposed by as its main don't It would be a disastrous errror tol supported At the same time it would more the the mass action to damentalist negotiators for their fundamentalist reality, pathy. Edward Kennedy and David Steel will talk about whilst Thatcher continue to build up nuclear weapons.
Soviet proposal for a fivenation freeze is part of their policy of accepting European nuclear weapons but rejecting American weapons in Whilst not opposing any step to put a brake on American nuclear rearmament, the European peace morement must stand on its own demands for no nuclear weapons in Western Europe, whoever they belong to.
Thompson's move to the right is explained by his consistent refusal to identify the responsibility • United governments for the current round of nuclear rearmament.
He claims in his New Statesman "article that one of CND's main errors was inal. Ine sogans or 1901 cruise, no SS20s - disappeared in the Reagan's "zero op tion", and little was found to replace Well Mr. Thompson, the reason why CND dropped that slogan was because it turned out to be exactly the same as Reagan's zero option.
In Britain and Europe Thompson refuses to recognise that only labour movement has the power fc stop the arms race. Instead he pro poses that the freeze movement broadened to include people like the whose entire existence dedicated to two objectives - defea ding NATO and defending the EEC.
The peace movement would gai nothing from this retreat except own destruction. In 1983 the movement must be broadened. forces like David Owen, bat to millions of trade unionists wto its aims through union conferences. And in the movement the obstacle to trac stop lefts" but the rights for whom Thompson displays sach syr
Socialist Action 1 July 1983