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