defence you decrease it in other ods.
However, I did put forward an ernative Foreword that brought out the open a question that is really releat in the defence field: namely, are under threat from the Soviet Union? ai Foreword makes the case that we 't believe in the Soviet threat theory - it also reminded people of the Soviet atribution to the war with 20 million It gave a completely different itical flavour to the defence docuA second amendment was moved at VEC which made it easier for me to cept the document: that it wasn't the word. it was open for discussion I would like to see the argument ren forward now into the political Are we going to have any defence - whether bows and arrows, or tridents, or home guards or guerrillas which accepts uncritically that there ¿ a Soviet threat to attack Western агоре? believe that policy repared on this basis is really designed another purpose: to use the foreign men order l lepress That is the area of argument we ould move HALO now, the details • VUL non-nucicar defence alc very condary arguments.
agree very much on one thing: the bote NATO defence strategy is based an alleged Soviet threat. But I think reality of the whole document is more serious than you think. been a major debate inside LATO itself, calling for the type of that the Labour Party is now opting. That is, a big build-up of ventional weapons Western This is outlined by Kissinger, aeral Rogers and others.
The defence document does reflect, in a the thinking of caterea-aown loll, hose who believe the bomb is now too langerous to use. rgument has made people feel that a suclear war of any kind would be terminal for civilisation, therefore we've por to go back to a souped-up convensonal force. There is a danger that the Labour Party could get drawn in quite the wrong direction.
But the central question remains an of the motivation and character of the superpowers, where we stand in relation to them. We eed to develop a policy that allows us to throw our weight, such as it is, in the direction of detente, development. The document is defecuve In that respect.
But the document goes out of its way to stress complete commitment to British membership of NATO. From you ve said, the sole NATO is to defend us against this (nonexistent unreal. 1as is anole. damental flaw in the document. do you think is the purpose of NATO?
Well, it's a good question. NATO grew up after the war, at a time when it was thought the Soviet Union might extend its frontiers. It was part of the desire by Western European leaders to commit the United States to Europe and avoid a Party policy remains the dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
What is dangerous about the way the argument is developing is that those in the party who point to a conference commitment to NATO then say that there is a contradiction between that the our decision not to be nuclear. And they say that this had to be reconciled — a readiness to stay nuclear by putting nuclear weapons into negotiations.
But then Britain isn't even in any negotiations, we play no part in them So the argument that the bomb gives you a seat at the table isn't even true.
The peace movement and Labour Party view of nuclear strong one. If that was the choice you would get a very different result on NATO membership.
The other thing that has to be taken into account is that reelected (which/seems very likely at the moment) the fall-off in his popularity and of confidence in the which has begun - will become much sharper.
But the first priority is our assessment of the motives and position of the , disarmament and superpowers. If we can get people to think straight about that, a lot of other things will follow. If the main emphasis is on NATO withdrawal, without people understanding the nature of that discussion, we are not likely to succeed.
rationale for on party policy to disolve NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Taking that as a star fun- ting point, What tional relations the peace question. pretty well come to the fullest develop ment it's capable of. Now it's got to redefined as a political movement with much broader objectives.
The Labour Perhaps you mean by that?
I've been to a lot of peace conferences in the last few years. that the agenda begins with the horrors of nuclear war, but immediately people begin raising women's rights, racism, unemployment, monetarism. and narrow movement, being by nuclear weapons and contined to the objective of removing them. It's absorbed with all the causes that are realv associated weapons 1s a forces in the United Europe and the non-aligned countries, the liberation movements around the coming. clutch of demands that go far beyond lI keagan the abolition of nuclear weapons or nuclear-free zones. A new international being born.
Europe?
The main priority is to base yourself we should discuss interna- indeed, go beyond peace.
I think the peace movement has you look at it that way.
could explain what you What's clear is their histories. language The peace movement is not a new brought into Perhaps I can put the with socialism and more clearly.
We ought to recognise that the peace movement and the progressive Westert Moscow.
with a political movement is in the process of has created g to operate in.
Well, I certainly agree with that. Take the Greens in West Germany. For obvious reasons, they have developed a politics which is extremely clear on such things as NATO and the presence of foreign military forces. What is your attitude to these types of development in Every country's politics reflect its own and traditions. The Green movement is interesting, a way in which socialism can express itself in the context of West Germany. Mind you, non-political green movement can be very reactionary. But in West Germany it's a reflection of the failure of the SPD to take on board the idealism of young people and the passion for France however is still reliving the shame of the 1940 defeat. I'm not saying I support it, but you can understand France wanting the force de frappe if Ilaly, where the Italian Communist Party is the main instrument of the working class movement, you have a different situation. And the same is true for Britain and America.
If you examine the politics of different countries, you find they reflect To understand the politics, and therefore know the alliances to build, needs a clear view of what's happening. There are elements everywhere we would, and should, ally ourselves to.
question a bit After 1945 not only was Europe divided, but the labour movement was almost exclusively divided into forces who aligned with the United States and forces who aligned with Since then there's been a dramatic decline in the pro-American forces, and a decline in the attractive power of what might be called the strictly stalinist, pro-Moscow, communist parties. This much bigger political space for the European socialist parties But two directions can be followed. built.
extremely dangerous, is what I think you referred to: the idea of a third superpower based on Europe. That's a trend you can see rather clearly in the politics of Mitterrand - what I'd call Euro-socialist.
The other thing emerging is what might be termed a Euro-left - the left of the Labour Party, the Greens, and various other currents • wno are Up• posed to European nuclear weapons as well as American. They are opposed to the idea of economic sacrifices to rearm Europe just as much as they oppose any sacrifices to aid the Americans. The European third force idea was the one that created the West European It was very much a Western establishment idea. It's the idea that American economic policy is dangerous and American foreign policy adventurous under Reagan. You can't be absolutely sure that the Americans will stay forever, and therefore you have to rearm, you have to have a European deterrent.
I suppose the French would like the force de frappe to be the core around which that is built, although they might accept that Britain under Mrs Thatcher might contribute something. Although our weapons can't be used without the They re just toys unless they're linked American into the American satelites I don't know whether you would call that Euro-socialist. It would really be the Brussels gang trying to recreate the old European Defence Community, like in the mid-5os, when there was ar attempt to supplement the Treaties of Paris and Rome with a treaty for a multinational force That attempt failed then, now they're trying to bring it back And İ also think that the ParisBonn axis, as The Times openly calls it, is based on the idea that the Germans would provide industrial strength and the French their diplomatic strength and the bomb - the core around which Western Europe and the EEC could be
peace movement I don't know that that's really cialist. I think really it is a sort of Common have won the case against the new generation of nuclear missiles for Socialist Action 2 November 1984 surfaced niversary of the December. openly witnarawal Irom Defence Defence Charter' policy' side door.
Meanwhile, the same debate has Campaign Nuclear Disarmament, in two complementary ways. First, the fifth anof the decision to deploy cruise missiles in this country will be on 12 December. Instead of the traditional mass action at Greenham Common to protest at this decision, CND national council has decided to call for a lobby 'Warsaw Pact' embassies on 8 They follow this up with resolutions to CND annual conference calling for a campaign against Russian missiles. It seems to have escaped their attention that there are no Russian missiles in this country!
At the same time, calls for CND to SHOT on the question of British NATO have been pushed off the 1984 agenda by the campaign leadership. There is a clear move away from the anti-NATO side of the campaign's aims, which goes hand in hand with a shifting emphasis towards non-nuclear defence.
A resolution calling for a 'National La declaration on the main principles which should guide defence foreign — failed to reach the final agenda. But the theme recurs in the form of a report to conterence from the for ward Planning Committee.
A draft of this was presented to CND's national council in October. No vote was taken on the report, which now goes — in whatever form the forward planning group wants to put it! -to November annual conference. This group are sneaking in a completely new perspective for the campaign by They say: "Our overriding goal is to convince the majority of the public by the next general election of the case for complete nuclear disarmament by Bn tain, and the adoption of a credible defence policy which does not rely on nuclear weapons.' (our emphasis).
Working out defence policy is not, and never has been. 9 concern of teN! — the biggest popular movement that