Sane ont Nuclear weapons talk: comparing words and deeds By GENNADY GERAMISOV On March 31, on prime television time, President Reagan told the people, *‘We are completing prepara- tions for talks with the Soviets on strategic weapons -limitations’’. Are things really moving, or is this an April Fool’s joke? When Reagan came to power in January, 1981 his administration refused to throw a life raft to save the _SALT-2 treaty which was sinking in the U.S. Congress, despite the fact that the U.S. had initialled the pact two years earlier. Reagan himself had opposed the SALT agreement from its outset but on assuming power blamed the Se- nate, not himself, for the treaty’s fate. On Nov. 18, 1981, Reagan indicated his intention to renegotiate the SALT agreement. So what we have are verbal good intentions that Washington stands for arms reductions. But let’s compare words and deeds: In January, 1981, newly-appointed Secretary of State Alexander Haig said that Washington is not ready for talks. The same month Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger declared it would take the U.S. six months to analyze the problem, even suggesting that if one moves more slowly some advantages could be obtained by the USA. : In June, a reporter with a good memory reminded Weinberger the six months were up. But the Defence Secretary evaded the question referring to other urgent matters. Another deadline was given: In June, 1981, Eugene -Rostow, Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Dis- armament Agency, said it would take America nine months to prepare for SALT talks. This term expired in March. It is understood that such talks do require careful preparation. But the problem hasn’t fallen on the United States out of the blue. The question has been actively discussed for the past 10 years, all arguments for and against have been placed. In the meantime, as the USSR argues, the issue is becoming increasingly acute and urgent. There are several reasons for this urgency. As the U.S. ‘‘studies’’ the problem it has launched the largest military build-up in its peacetime history ($1.6-trillion by 1985), including new weapons’ systems which can knock the ground from under limitation, reduction and control agreements that are today still possible. Military-technical fantasies, if not stopped, will upset all diplomatic plans and hopes to halt the arms race. While Reagan talked about ‘“‘windows of vulner- ability’’ he claims exist he ignores every Soviet proposal including not to develop new systems, not to deploy Cruise missiles and the neutron bomb in Europe and not to build new types of submarines. U.S. plans to proceed with all these dangerous new programs might help explain Weinberger’s remarks about the advantages of delay. And, while we hear Reagan speak about talks at some unidentified time, we also hear demands to link such talks with ‘‘Soviet conduct’’ and U.S. approval of such conduct. A pretext can always be found, but the United States should be no less interested than the USSR in lowering the level of nuclear confrontation. Reagan has called on the Soviet Union to ‘‘join with us now’ to reduce nuclear weapons. But he didn’t name a date. He also made his invitation while arguing the U.S. must continue to carry out its arms program. He rejected the resolutions by Senators Kennedy and Hatfield to freeze nuclear arsenals and supported counter-resolutions by Senators Jackson and Warner for a freeze — but only after the U.S. has completed its military build-up. The green light for the arms race has been given by Reagan. In the view of Senator Edmund Muskie, Reagan’s -press conference itself can be seen as a victory for the growing U.S. nuclear freeze movement. But isn’t it the administration’s aim to deflate this growing movement which has been revived in response to Washington's militarist policy? As one observer noted, Reagan tried to freeze the freeze movement. Gennady Geramisov is a political analyst for Novosti Press Agency. International Focus Tom Morris 4 The answer’s easy: change the figures The famous Atlantic Month- ly magazine article (Dec. 1981) on how the Reagan team con- cocted its economic strategy should be read by everyone interested in Reagonomics. The article, based on an interview with Reagan’s economic advisor David Stockman, put Stockman smack into the doghouse. End- less detail on how the team ar- rived at a formula to create magic and do the impossible is given, including a look into Stockman’s conversion from a college radical to a conservative. But one passage gives a glimpse into what went on. It describes how Stockman put all available data through the computers to see what would happen to the U.S. economy if the Reagan program was car- ried through. He wanted to answer the question: Can you increase defence spending, cut taxes and balance the budget? The computer promptly predicted a $65 to $112-billion deficit. But Reagan and Stockman were wed to the proposition so the next step was clear — _ Stockman hired a new set of computer programmers, changed the data input and pressed the button. The com- puter gave the ‘‘right’’ answer. It was possible. The rest is history. Reagan boosted the defence budget to unheard of levels. He cut taxes (mainly to corporations). The computer of life gave the answer: the U.S. is looking at a minimum of $100-billion budget deficit; Reagan’s sup- port is evaporating, inflation keeps rising, unemployment is at depression levels, millions are being hurt. The magazine article is ti- tled, ‘‘ The education of David Stockman’. If so, its certainly the most expensive ‘‘educa- tion’’ in history. He was prob- ably a lousy college radical anyway. Reward friends, punish enemies Loyalty is a commendable quality. And that quality must be one of the few things anyone could like about the CIA. San Diego federal attorney William Kennedy is complain- ing that his efforts to prosecute a Mexican held = since November has been blocked by the CIA because the man is a ‘‘key U.S. intelligence source’? for the Agency in Central America. Migel Haro, former chief of Mexico’s Directorate of Fed- eral Security, it seems, has been ‘‘sharing information” with the CIA since 1977, in- cluding keeping tabs on E] Sal- vadoreans and Guatemalans working in Mexico. The problem is, however, that Haro became involved in an $8-million stolen car ring thus coming to the attention of California authorities. For complaining about CIA stone- walling of his investigation, William Kennedy is threatened with dismissal by the Reagan administration. If that’s not loyalty, what is? The first issue of Informa- tion Bulletin, put out by the Solidarity Information Office in Canada which is _head- quartered at the Canadian Labor Congress offices in To- ronto carries a strange dis- claimer. It says: ‘‘Solidarity Information Offices abroad are not officially authorized to represent Solidarnosc.”’ The modesty, however, ends right there. Issue one di right in to clear up “‘six com- mon misconceptions about the situation in Poland’’ and we're told, for example, that ‘‘all of Solidarity’s strikes in 1981 cost the Polish economy a total of five hours of production per worker’. A call is contained in the sheet to starve out the Poles: ‘*Even though economic sanc- tions against Poland mean gre- ater human suffering,’ one leader is quoted, ‘‘they create pressure that we hope will con- tribute to the re-instatement of Solidarity and to necessary re- forms.” The Bulletin then takes on the Soviets: stop importing Lada cars (beneficial to the Canadian auto market) and Look for stop selling grain to the USSR, _ We're urged. The 8-page bulletin runs the Same tired line — that every- thing Solidarity did was perfect (even to embracing the princi- ples of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi) and every- thing the Polish state did to protect itself was a communist plot instigated by the USSR. One thread runs throughout most articles in the bulletin, that of the “‘rights’’ of trade unions. Carrying the CLC ad- dress on its masthead and a piece by Ontario Federation of Labor Executive Assistant Lenkinski add to the image of good, solid trade unionism. But wait a minute, some-- thing is missing — the bulletin is printed without a union label. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 16, 1982—Page 9