How far do Gorbachov's calling overall approach, radical this arms reductions.
In respect, they are a condemnation of the policy followed by the bureauproposals go?
cracy up till now.
As significant as this new course of the bureaucracy is, it nonetheless remains a strietly diplomatic offensive in the context of state-to-state
Thus, the activists of the
DO GORBACHOV'S spectacular proposals, which will be on the table relations.
in independent movements peace in a summit meeting in Geneva on November 19-20, offer a new the East, in the USSR in particular, thaw? If you read the European press, it would seem so. In Western unilateral who advocated just such
Europe, the powers that be are skeptical about the SDI (Strategic measures remain in prison.
The bureaucracy is capable of
Defense Initiative), because Europe does not have a great deal to gain turnarounds of this sort when the circumstances require it, this as in
So, hardly a day goes by without admonitions to Reagan to make case when the problems of the Soviet economy make it more difficult for deals with the Soviet Union. Agreements are in fact possible. This them to compete with the US in time also the US has an interest in keeping the negotiations from the arms race.
blowing up. However, this is no reason to breathe easy. This round
However, the bureaucracy is totally of negotiations in Geneva promises to open a new eycle in the arms incapable of stimulating by its policy an authentic mass movement for peace that would attack the real of the imperialist military cause drive - the survival of the capitalist system itself.
Gorbachov put up a good can as a presentable state leader, front but he will never focus the hopes and struggles of the workers and the youth. His aim is not the extension of the socialist revolution but "peaceful coexistence" with the imperialist states.
The means the Soviet chief looks mobilization but to are not mass a diplomatic chess with the game imperialist leaders. If any proof of that were needed, the hard lot of the independent peace activists in the East is testimony enough.
Yann Menez Mikil mational Viewpoint 28 October 1985 out of it. race. ANGELA KLEIN
After the collapse of the 1983 negotiations on the US intermediate-range missiles and their deployment in Europe, the Soviet Union is interested today vin stopping rein forcement of the firststrike capacity in general and in particular in blocking the acceleration of the arms race in space.
As for the US, what it wants is to underwrite its previous initiatives in the area of arms control and make a deal with the Soviet Union for "controlled" antisatellite and antimissile defense in space, in order to avoid the accusation that its SDI program violates the ABM [AntiBallistic Missile] treaty of 1972, which bans the use of space for military purposes. Not the least consideration in this is to allay European misgivings about participating in the SDI.
The nub of the Soviet proposals concern three areas of the arms buildup in which the US could inflict a decisive nuclear blow on the Soviet Union without itself being crippled by Soviet missiles.
The deployment of an anti3
NATU SOLINEN
TEGEN KERIWAPENS
MILITAIN most they are concerned that for the public opinion there should be no formal violation at least of the ABM treaty. And at the same time, the West European powers are setting up their own little European the European Defense Initiative (EDI), which is to be a complement to the EUREKA agency for research and development.
The advocates of West Europe as a third space power - for Mitterrand and Strauss - point out that, like the US, Europe can only make a qualitative technological leap forward, thereby also benefiting the
'NATO soldiers against nuclear weapons' (DR)
system in space. The Soviet is willing to permit research but not tests. Deployment is to be banned. To this end it proposes that offensive nuclear arms sides should be destroyed. But there is no binding link between deploying new nuclear weapons systems. This concerns, above all, the new generation of US intercontinental MX missiles, ( the Midgetman missiles, which are highly accurate and suitable for a first strike. On Hiroshima Day, the Soviet Union announced that would observe a unilateral cessation of testing new nuclear weapons systems until end of the year.
Finally, the Soviet Union still wants the withdrawal of US intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles. In this area also, the Soviet Union has announced a unilateral step. The number of SS20s deployed in the European part of the Soviet Union is to be reduced to 243. This corresponds to the number of British and French nuclear missiles.
Since the US refuses to include the French and British missiles in the Geneva negotiations, and since France has declared that there its missiles therefore, they cannot be diseussed proposed to France and Great Britain it has dropped its original position was willing to diseuss interwere also discussions on the SDI.
The US negotiating proposal dates back to March of this year and focuses on a reduction of the big land-based Soviet missiles, authorities suppose could crack their
Washington's response to the Soviet been mainly negative. It considers a ban on the deployment of new missiles systems as unnegotiable. The US would accept a significant reduction in its nuclear missiles but not in the systems that give them a qualitative superiority over the Soviet Union.
On the question of the intermediate missiles, Mitterrand has given Gorbachov the run around. There will bilateral negotiations. on the SDI might a compromise be possible, which would let the US Soviet Union says that it is not against the realm of the "peaceful use" of deployment is conceivable only in 15 to twenty years, it is possible to use formulas making a future decision to deploy dependent on the behaviour of the Soviet Union. There is no way to get the US to agree to a ban on testing. That would make the research itself worthless. But here also it is possible to find compromise formulas. Thus, the US has the possibility to come to an apparent understanding with the Soviet Union to renounce starting the SDI program, without thereby having to make a single concession. The motives of European capitalists
Soviet Union had indeed hoped to be able to link up with the Nest European criticism of the SDI it eagerly praised alternative." It got totally lost here, because the criticism of the West European governbusinesspeople but rather economically
The rulers of West Europe reckon that out of the SDI research program, for which the US will spend 26 billion dollars, 100 million dollars will go to
European firms in research contracts. The most important results of this research are to be kept in the US, which now, along with its trade protectionism, is practising a kind of technological protectionism.
"loyalty to the alliance," the West Europeans are not doing anything to counter the SDI. At civilian economy, if the state lays out the money in the form of military mind, in part, are programs like those included in the framework of the SDI - ultrahighspeed circuitry, computers that can solve problems on their own, intelligent sensors, a new generation of robots, laser technology, and the new biotechnology.
All of these technologies an integrated air defense; or in the development of "intelligent weapons," doctrines for waging war; or in the construction of the multisensor observation satellite that is to be built by France and West Germany, which is to serve both military and civilian
Thus, the Soviet Union is coming under the combined pressure of US and West European acceleration of the arms race. There is no doubt about the danger that it is facing. Unlike at the end of the 1950s, the Soviet economy, now enmeshed in crisis, can hardly manage the effort needed to overcome its enormous technological lag and to achieve military "equality."
The Soviet Union's policy up till now of trying to restrain the arms spiral through negotiations and at the same time to preserve military with the US is thus coming into a total blind alley. Gorbachov's generous unilateral steps are limited in time. His spectacular disarmament proposals are accompanied by implicit threat: "If the SDI is not stopped, strategic weapons limitations off." In other words, then there would be an unrestrained arms race in offensive nuclear weapons.
the hopes about the ability leadership not only to reject the arms race but block it.
It would be cheaper and politically far more effective if the Soviet Union unilateral disarmament proposals, even if the Geneva negotiations fail. That would give assistance to all of those in the West fighting against the SDI International Viewpoint 28 October 1985
BRITAIN 1984, the NUM was the only union to support Black sections, at this year's conference the NUR the railworkers' union), NUPE (public employees) and one or two smaller unions added support. The resolution in conference:
Black sections in support of was defeated but this is now an issue of substantial support was reflected in a big increase in the the left fights on number of Black delegates at the conference and their role in supporting class struggle issues under debate
THIS YEAR'S Labour Party conference, held at the beginning of
October in Bournemouth marked a key point in the developments inside the British labour movement following the 1984-1985 miners' strike. It was dominated by two processes which will remain the key to Labour Party politics between now election.
The first, quite obviously, was Neil Kinnock's (the leader of the
Party) campaign to make Labour 'fit to govern' by turning its back on the miners, on cities like Liverpool (1) and on the Black communities. Kinnock quite consciously used this conference to project himself as a candidate acceptable to the capitalists for prime minister and as a more effective 'hammer of the left' than David Owen or
David Steele [leaders of the Social
Liberal Party Alliance].
REDMOND O' NEILL
The second process was the continuing emergence out of the miners' strike of a Labour left of a quite different type to anything seen since at least World War Two. This 'fighting left' - around the NUM, the Black sections and the Campaign
Group of MPs [Members of
Parliament]
- was a clear minority in the conference, but a minority which, because it is based on class struggle, was able to impose some important defeats on Kinnock.
Most importantly, the resolution moved by
National Union the
Mineworkers [NUM] called for; "The next Labour government to legislate to provide; a)
A complete review of all cases of miners jailed as a result of the dispute that is the 1984-1985 miners' strike]; b) the reinstatement of miners sacked for activities arising out of the dispute; c) the reimburse.
ment of the National Union of Mineworkers with all monies confiscated as a result of fines, sequestration and receivership.'
The resolution was carried by a vote of 3,542,000 for and 2,912,000 against. This was a clear defeat for
Neil Kinnock who himself summarised minutes, the debate for twenty attacking the entire course of the
NUM leadership in the 1984-1985 miners' strike. A resolution was also carried in support of the struggle of
Labour-controlled local authorities
International Viewpoint 28 October 1985 and the 1987 general
Democratic Party (SP) and like Liverpool and Lambeth, the Tory government's laws the powers of local government and imposing large cuts in services and jobs. In particular, it was agreed "to commit the next Labour government ... to fully compensate those representatives of the Labour movement who bankruptey, disqualification or whatever as a result of non-compliance with these laws.' first time in Labour carried in support of lesbian and gay rights against the recommendation of Executive Committee. The support of key unions for this resolution reflected the political impact that such paigns as Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners wereable to have on the trade unions during the 12-month strike.
resolution was passed, also against the NEC recommendation, in support of women's reproductive rights. This specifically committed the Labour Party to end where Labour MPs' votes on issues like abortion are treated of individual conscience rather than binding party policy.
On the question of the right of Black Labour Party members to organise in constitutionally recognised Black sections of the party, important progress was registered. Whereas in