lest European SDP or Alliance. The ct that Mitterrand's part of it and me individual members of the British abour Party are attacted by it doesn't ake it fair to call it Euro-socialist.
I presume what you mean by the aro-left is the Italian Communist Parand the bulk of the constituencies in ritain, and a lot of other green and enconmental groups, the ovements — a torce that is canable of eveloping a new Europe, free from the reat of the superpowers and the ocpation of the superpowers.
The peace question is too narrowly amed terms the capons. It's got to be a very much oader movement, and it's got to have alies in the non-aligned counes. I've been trying to persuade some n-aligned Tenders to estern Europe under the auspices of e United Nations, and have semirars disarmament development nich would allow them to participate Ine pontical me or une countries ere the UN commissions go. I would efer to call that Euro-socialist That is where we should be going. If u go back to the post-war years, there as a third force movement in the bour Party which Nye Bevan was sociated with. What the Bevanites ere saying in the years when I was first octed to parliament until the ar began: was that thev wanted Bri in to be, in a sense, non-aligned. They anted Britian to be playing its part in a ferent way, not tied mericans.
And I think all that history and imtus and aspiration and desire is repressing itself now in the whole of rope, East and West. ing we should be part of, not obusly part of Mitterrand's dream of = glory of France, buttressed by the wer of Germany and inspired by the ame of past defeats. That is not a ture which would attract the British our movement.
peace nuclear come round general defence policy disarmament.
Cold unpopular to the defenceless.
That is the unilateralism, it is argued, itself without the bomb? SINCE LABOUR lost the 1983 popularity La on has broken out.
Many people believe that the peace movement, and with it the Labour Party, lost the argument on nuclear Labour's defeat is often attributed to its profoundly commitment to policy it is strategies. argued — which the majority of the electorate felt would leave Britain forgotten The debate in the Labour Party 1983 now, increasingly echoed in the peace movement, is about 'defence without nuclear nuclear weapons'. To win support for woluer must answer the questign: can Britain defend But this view of Mrs Thatcher's victory leaves two things out of account.
First, the overwhelming success of the Tory Party is not explained by the defence.
of its policies. undemocratic peculiarities of British electoral system gave a whopping parliamentary majority to a party which received only 43 percent of the lolal vole, and whose popularity (as statistics show) is in long-term decline.
It is not, and never has been, the case that Mrs Thatcher has a majority mandate for her nuclear war-fighting Second, it is often conveniently that many leading figures most notably exprime minister Callaghan — fought the publicly opposed Labour's promise to get rid of weapons lacked confidence Labour — they were openly encouraged by its own parliamentary leaders!
Labour's downfall does not mean that Tory nuclear policy is popular, but it has highlighted contradictions within the labour and peace movement about The women Greenham the whole of Britain's peace movement, opinion poll shows. Ine job everywhere is to build on the Greenham gains.
This won't happen if CND or the Labour Party go hook line and sinker over to Mrs defence. Strange as it might sound, this is just what is beginning to happen.
since me elecuon, unose very same leaders who cost Labour its victory, aided and abetted now by many with a adherence have gained much ground within the party. And that same current of opinion is creeping into CND.
Labour's new defence policy, whilst repeating unlateransı argues for so-called defence policy placed firmly in the conThe text of "full Labour government, it says, will argue from the inside for NATO to become a non-nuclear alliance, no-first-use agreement.
Such an agreement is as far away today as it nas always Labour's leaders are forced to admit it will doing, Labour commits itself to increase conventional forces, longstanding pledge to reduce arms spending Despite all this, Labour's new defence policy year's party conference by a huge fiveto-one majority. Defence and Security No for Britain has been welcomed by right and left alike.
Messrs Healey and Shore glowed over Labour's firmest commitment yet to stay with the Unilateralists in the party were content that promises to scrap Trident, get rid of cruise, and 'decommission' were up-front.
after another of unilateralists nuclear alliance.
Thatcher framework for Nukes nukes -suasions.
The commitments, non-nuclear of support for NATO. A tion. starting with a government been. Even Meanwhile, abandoning its was accepted at this Polaris renowned. Britain has ever seen. From its birth, been specific ends: getting rid of all nuclear weapons from British territory, withdrawal from the NATO Atlantic These straightforward and limited aims of the campaign - scrapping the goes a long way towards explaining its success.
For obvious reasons, millions of people fear the terrible consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, by accident or design. That fear unites millions of people of vastly different political per"single-issue' nature of the peace movement has always been the key to its success. From the early days Aldermaston to the present Greenham Common Peace Camp, peopie have got together in their deter mination to prevent nuclear annihilaThe attempt to change the aims of CND — from disarmament to advising defence policy represents a fundamental attack on the unity of the movement. Pacifists will not unite with communists on the issue of 'what defence for Britain'. Because their view of society is fundamentally different. To force the campaign in that direction will quickly break it up.
Any old non-nuclear defence policy is not an answer to the unilateralist's dilemma: how do we win before it's too late? The answer to that lies in develop. ing a socialist foreign 1 policy. Part of the pressure to devise it will come from a continuingly successful peace movement which understands the need to keep nuclear disarmament at the top of its agenda, by the national mass actions for which the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has rightly become so
THE FSLN's daily newspaper, has been the vehicle for a lively debate on the coming elections, publishing the opinions of different sections those of organisations as well as those of individuals. Here are a few of them.
• a worker: perfectly alright as we are.' of strengthening the revolution even more. workers will give the bourgeoisie their answer by supporting the Sandinista Front.' • a militia member, in response to the right wing opposition's demand that the armed forces not be given the vote (as happens in America: 'I've been in the reserves tor 3 years, not counting the liberation war. How can we not have the right to vote, when we're the ones who made the revolution, when we are the people?' • à local trade union leader, on the bourgeoisie's demand for international supervision of the elections: 'Foreign supervision is an offence to a people who have carried out a revolution. • the Sandinista Youth organisation's slogan for Socialist Action 2 November 1984 Barricada, Nicaraguan society, I don't want elections. We're most of Latin THE INTERNATIONAL to discredit government agreed to 19 July 1979: Sandinistas celebrate the overthrow of Somoza the most recent blatant exponed. Despite the glow-