Helsinki, diplomacy and and aggression, the fatalistic attitude of the silent majoirty - all these the peace movement overcome by the "gentle can be power of reason" (Lombardo-Radice).
We see these as tasks of the peace movement and their accomplishment as just as important as its many concrete suggestions for disarmament
THE FOLLOWING are major extracts from a document written and new political directions.
in response to the Prague Appeal by the West Berlin group of the
European Network for East-West Dialogue. This contribution deals
An emancipation with the question of what attitude to take toward the Helsinki movement
Accords, and examines critically the possibilities for, and the limitations of, official action by the governments in both parts of Europe.
The peace movement must be an emancipation movement in the widest
Ecology,
Third
World and sense.
women's groups belong to it, as do work for demomovements which cratic renewal of society, the establishment of human rights and for an alternative eulture, as do social and national minorities. Many goals of the peace movement are also identical with those of the workers' movement:
the elimination of stupefying work and the extension of self-determination at the workplace. The classical relations of dependence and exploitation still exist, although new dangers have been superimposed on them.
A form of democratic socialism, freed, by means and decentralisation, from the system of growth at any price and oriented towards an ecological humanism, is conceivable in our two countries.
We are aware there there is much to be done before these ends can be reached. We must address everyone, those who because of their even institutional position are opposed to any change of the status quo. Those changes for our existence necessary and for human dignity only can be set in motion as part of a free and public discussion.
The length of for changes time necessary of such a scale to be effected demands of us a special respect for the generations to follow. A precondition peaceful social coexistence is
International Viewpoint 24 March 1986
In the preamble of your appeal, you call on us in the West to respond
The urgency, as you quite rightly see it, of such a demand reveals the fact that dialogue between independent movements in the West and in the East is not yet something be taken for granted. We that our public response will prompt others in the peace movement to take part in the discussion. Can the CSCE point a way forward?
The Conference on Security and Cooperation in & Europe (CSCE) aroused very little interest in the Western peace movement. The reason for this is that it put aside the question of military disarmament. In the meantime, there was the Conference on Disarmament in Stockholm in 1984. But there also they did not deal with real disarmament.
There have only been discussions on arms control, in which the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated virtually on their own. The European allies only got crumbs from the negotiating table. The dominant role of the United States and the Soviet Union is explained by their nuclear supremacy and by the fact that the Europeans regard nuclear weapons as the decisive element for their security. In movement, there is little interest in such negotiations.
You say that the CSCE is a forum true. But the loyalty of the countries in each European bloc to their resand would have led to the failure of the subsequent conferences, if the neutral countries had not each time rebuilt avenues of dialogue.
The CSCE has been built on the basis of the division between blocs and it is always in danger of being used to counter the phenomena of the breakup of the blocs, or as a guarantor of the division of Europe between US and Soviet spheres of influence, as well as of the immutability of social relations.
The CSCE process was able to have a dynamism in the 1970s because of a partial convergence between the interests of the Soviet Union and the United States. These powers were also pushed along this path by their European allies. In the present period, the proposal for turning to the leaders and denouncing their failure to respect their commitments flowing from the CSCE seems, quite simply, too general.
15
Bloc loyalty will not allow any big advances. It seems to us, however, that it would be sensible for the movement to undertake a constructive dialogue with the neutral countries in order to arrive at a promising way forward for the CSCE
In West Germany, the question arises whether the policy of the SPD [Social Democratic Party of Germany ] the CSCE might not be useful prop for the peace movement. In opposition the SPD has come out against some American arms projects and developed a policy to suit European and German interests.
However, the SPD imposes three on the CSCE: the blocs Europe; the internal political stability only be influenced politically through official channels. endorsing all the decisions of NATO, to the SPD taking its distance from movements such as Solidarnose and to its excluding all dialogue between the independent peace groups in the East and in the framework leaves us little room for intervening in have taken place in the framework
Your appeal prompted us to reof the CSCE. It is astonishing to see what the governselves to. And despite all the positive such as for example, openings for journalists to work, openings for meetings of professional at the time of East-West conferences and so forth, the fact remains that the reality is not in line with the fine words of Helsinki, far from it.
In the third part of the Helsinki
"the possibilities for extensive trips ... for professional or personal reasons" must be widened. You know as well as we do that you cannot travel freely and that we are often prevented from going participating in this conference also claimed "to promote a freer circulation of periodical and nonperiodicai material coming from other participating countries .. Such publications will also be available in reading rooms." Today, as before, political literature is still being excluded, including your document and ours.
It is no coincidence that the examples cited apply to relationships in the East. By comparison with the brutal oppression you face, conditions differ considerably here in the West. But even for us, we have to continually renew the fight over the 16 relationship between the state. We live under parliamentary democracy, and nonetheless the parliament has come out for the deployment of new missiles on our territory, while two-thirds of the population was against it. have to more and more impose their concept of security by high-handed as is shown by the recent of the missiles an hour decision in parliament. Another example is the numerous judicial proceedings against the partiblockades of military installations.
Why have we presented these examples? It is because they should make it clear that the CSCE as an instrument of likely to lead to positive developments in the short term and that what was good for the peoples in the Helsinki Accords will be partially reversed. If we reflect, began to do with respect CSCE process, we then have to distinguish the different levels of dipexist tor to see the possibilities that the independent active in the East and in the West.
More decisive is what the CSCE could mean for our work right now. As far as its demands go, the new movement in West Germany is no different than the one in the
But it is new because it is the control diplomatic apparatuses that have gone out of control by the intervention of the citizens themselves. Such a process accomplished in West Germany, for example in the women's movement or the ecology movement.
In this respect, we see our East-West dialogue as a start in democratizing East-West relations through the development of a "citizens' which can exert an influence on the institutional power without replacing it. We must test still more precisely what meaning the CSCE could have in this context. "Citizens' power"
are certainly possibilities cultural, youth accurately as possible.
The second taboo you touch on [after German Unity] is the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Easter and Western European coun tries. This is inseparable from a new peaceful order in Europe. How could this peaceful order emerge as long as there is no peace treaty with the Germans. The troops of the victorious powers are present without any fixed time limit, until there is such a treaty (cf. Article 3 of the treaty of the stationing of troops from the three Western allies in West Germany and the corresponding arrangement between the Soviet Union and East Ger-
Moreover, the four (!) allies in 1972 reciprocally reconfirmed in the Berlin accord [on relations between the two German states their right of occupation as conquerors. This limited sovereignty of the two German states and the occupation of Berlin would be incompatible with a peaceful order organized on familiar lines.
We hold this view not only because the present situation does not permit the right of self-determination but also because it serves as the justification for the military pacts, presence of Soviet troops and their nuclear weapons in the East European border countries, as well as for the corresponding presence of the Western allies, at least of the Americans.
To this extent, the treaties between West Germany and the Soviet Union, Poland and Czechoslovakia, like the ones between East Germany and the Soviet Union, are ersatz peace treaties.
We think that the two taboos you touch on [German unity and withdrawal of foreign troops] have to be broken simultaneously in order to overcome the partition of Europe. As a first step on the military level, measures could be taken, in particular troop reduction, monitoring of chemical and bacteriological weapons and nuclear-free zones.
On the economic level, our objective could be attained through intensive East-West trade involving a simultaneous exchange of technologies. Because of our daily experience structure such as the EEC, we are less inclined than you to see a rapprocheCOMECON as a propitious sign for a peaceful evolution in Europe.
We see the enlargement of the EEC NATO for us to be able to see in it a positive sign for the future of Europe. Does it not rather represent an enlarge ment of the West European economic and military bloc? Would it not have been more significant for the future of a united Europe if Spain and Portugal had joined the group of neutral European countries instead of increasing one of the bloes?
The EEC has helped little to eliminate poverty on the peripheral areas of Western and Southern Europe. No one talks any longer about the International Viewpoint 24 March 1986
orders
International Viewpoint and marked
Polish Inprekor".
DOCUMENT hope for a democratic evolution in this economic bloc. In the shadow of the Brussels EEC bureaucracy and the decisions of the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament has hardly any significance. We also are apprehensive about the new developments in the framework of the West European Union (WEU). (1) Building a common arms industry does not favor the political emancipation of West Europe but corresponds rather to the desire to make it into a third big military power.
We think that rather your vision of Europe suits our conceptions and hopes:
"The and dignity of individual citizens are the key to the freedom and self-determination not pose the threat of a global nuclear war, but instead serve as an example of real peaceful coexistence."
1. The members of the WEU are France, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, West Germany, the United Kingdom and Belgium. The aim of the WEU is gradual European integration the fields economics, politics and military matters. The organization has a standing committee on arms.
PEACE MOVEMENT to achieve this ideal we must include all the controversial problems that exist on our continent nowadays. While we support your standpoint on the unification of Germany and the inviolability of European borders -the KOS message to the Berlin Conference — we must point out that the fate of free peoples deprived of their independence by the Soviet Union is an equally important problem. A new Europe cannot be built without the participation of the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Belorussians and Ukranians. We believe that this matter should be included in such an important document as the Prague Appeal.
Neither do we share your completely positive opinion on the negotiating process of Helsinki. In spite of its