Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!we13!otuxa!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Whither the Peace Movement?
Message-ID: <143@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jun-83 18:08:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: tty3b.143
Posted: Mon Jun 27 18:08:18 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jun-83 10:07:24 EDT
Lines: 86

The Peace Movement in the U.S. is suffering from its own rapid
growth.  By purposefully reaching out to the largest possible
audience -- including many people who were not previously 
political at all -- the movement has also put at risk its long
term endurance to win any real victories.  I hope that many who
became involved have been educated as to the relationship between
arms negotiations and the defense budget and that they view the
Freeze as a tactic, not the end.  

The MX and other systems such as it will continue to be voted by
Congress as long as the majority of our representatives feel free
to literally vote for the Freeze Resolution one day and a
$260 billion-plus military budget the next.  As long as they are
not called on the carpet for this amazing contradiction, the arms
race will continue unabetted by Freeze Resolutions in Washington or
"negotiations" in Geneva.

Bill and Joel are right in pointing out the enormous influence of
military contractors on defense spending.  There are solutions to
this, which is really a subset of the PACmen problem in D.C.  
Probably the best solution attainable now is public funding of
election campaigns, which doesn't solve the problem of those who
WANT to sell their souls to the PACs but at least gives those who
don't a reasonable chance of getting elected.

I think there needs to be a serious debate within the American
Peace Movement over tactics.  I think that mass protests, such as
the one which took place at the test-firing at Vandenburg and the
(much larger) one in New York last year can be effective at showing
strength.  But these will not win the war, so to speak.  I think a
few things have to happen politically in order for the Peace
Movement to truly succeed in the U.S.

One is that Ronald Reagan must be clearly targeted.  The movement
must become politically anti-Reagan.  Reagan will never take any
substantial steps towards lessening the arms race.  Never.  That
may be because he genuinely believes that the Russians are ahead
of us, or it may be because his buddies happen to be many of those
who profit the most from the arms race.  I don't think it really
matters whether he's stupid or cynical, I just want
him back on a ranch in California where he can't do anymore harm.
Of course, merely opposing Reagan isn't enough.  We need someone
to be FOR.  The Peace Movement must begin encouraging sympathetic
candidates to run for national office, including President.  I view
Cranston et al as opportunistic and certainly not to be trusted.
Sure, they're better than Reagan but how long can you keep settling
for lesser of two evils until you end up with just the evil of two
lessers.

Second is that the movement must seriously question whether 
negotiations (a la Geneva) are really a part of ending the arms
race.  I have come to strongly suspect that negotiations are little
more than a tactic of the opposition.  That negotiations do little
more than (a) provide another forum for the two powers to pary with
each other for advantages, and (b) legitimize the debate as an
essentially technical one.  I think many in Europe have already
come to that conclusion; hence the call by Britain's Labour Party
for unconditional, unilateral reductions in Britain's nuclear force.
(Please, detractors, don't point out that Labour lost.  We all know
that, but there's good reason to believe that most Britains are
behind them on this issue).

Third we need to clearly state that making the debate over peace
a technical one is a tactic of the cold warriors.  That's right,
a tactic.  It's a way of putting the ball in their court, where
they can stall forever over minor technical details while they
proceed to build and build.  Just like playing the issue as purely
a moral one (do you want to destroy the Earth?) is a tactic of
ours.  We should refuse to play by their rules.  This means that
calling for negotiations is playing right into the hands of the
cold warriors.  Instead, we should call for small unilateral
moves which depend on reciprocity for continuation.  For example,
a U.S. president could announce that he will unilaterally cut U.S.
warheads to a certain number (below that of the Soviets) and outline
plans for futher cuts if the Soviets follow his lead.  Of course,
this assumes an Administration legitimately seeking to reduce the
threat, not simply offer "cuts" which fall heavily on the other side
and lightly on us (such as Reagan's `Zero Option').

I realize that not all this is as fully developed as I'd like it
to be, but let's have some discussion.  I'll read the responses
from the cold warriors, but I'm particularly interested in those
reflecting the interest of the majority in the U.S.

Mike Kelly
tty3b!mjk