DISARMAMENT By TOM MORRIS It’s symbolic that to mark its 40th anniversary, the United Nations Organization proclaimed 1986 Inter- national Year of Peace. In doing so, the UN outlined the fol- lowing objectives for member states: ‘To stimulate concerted and effective actions by the United Nations ... in promoting peace, international security and cooperation on the basis of the Char- ter of the United Nations, and the resolu-- tion of conflict by peaceful means; ‘*To focus attention and encourage re- flection on the basic requirements of peace in the contemporary world, in par- ticular: (i) ‘“‘The interrelationships of peace and development and social progress, security, national independence and justice; (ii) Disarmament and prevention of nuclear catastrophe as essential ele- ments of peace; (ili) The exercise of human rights and freedom as an essential element of peace; (iv) The role of international coopera- tion, dialogue, mutual understanding and trust in the maintenance of peace with the involvement of governments, parliaments and non-government organizations; (v) Preparation for life in peace, a pro- cess in which education, science, relig- ion and the mass media play important roles, and which requires effective par-' ticipation of various social groups, especially women, youth, elderly, war veterans and professionals; (vi) Peace as arequirement for the total satisfaction of such human needs as food, shelter, health, education, labor and the environment. While the United Nations’ Inter- national Year of Peace began officially on the date of its 40th anniversary, October 24, 1985, its full effect will more likely be felt as 1986 begins, a time when human- Kind traditionally takes stock and looks to the future. The new year had barely begun when the dramatic Soviet 15-year peace pro- posals, sweeping in character, concrete in form, were announced Jan. 15. The 1986: A PEACEFU! ot Sg heat PAR Sarin ise not bombs three-stage plan for the eventual com- plete elimination of nuclear arsenals by the year 2000 pulled together all the inter-connected pieces of the complex disarmament issue. It addressed con- cerns for verification. It opened wide the path to a world without nuclear arms. It offers humankind an alternative to the dangerous and costly arms race while guaranteeing nations’ security. The Soviet plan challenges the capital- ist world’s fine-sounding words about peace by placing before them a detailed, step-by-step blueprint as a basis for seri- Ous negotiation. Its thrust is clear: the way to eliminate the arms race and hor- rendous stockpiles; the way to prevent new technology from overwhelming humankind is to first stop where we are, % : ns eo td - of PT 2 He Site : ee 4 P begin to scale down and then eventually eliminate nuclear weapons and delivery systems altogether. The ball has been put squarely in the capitalist court. eo Bee The USSR’s challenge is deep and basic. General Secretary Gorbachev put it squarely at a Moscow news confer- ence: ‘The principle imposed by militar- ism — armament instead of development — should be replaced by the opposite order of things — disarmament for development.” This fundamental ingredient flows from the scope of the Soviet Union’s overall proposal. While the overriding Movement finds new maturity The Tribune asked Gordon Flowers, executive director of the Canadian Peace Congress to comment on some aspects of working for peace in 1986. As you may know there haven’t been any negotiations or agreements be- tween the Soviet Union and the United States for more than 12 years, since SALT II, in fact. What develops in the Geneva talks should give an indication of how the next summit will deal with things in more concrete terms. I think it’s a question of whether the United States is prepared to be more serious about supporting the process of disarmament. In some ways the level of struggle has changed. No longer are people re- sponding simply to the question of sur- vival. They are asking who is really re- sponsible for the war danger. They have seen a tremendous number of proposals from the Soviet Union in the last few months. Ifthe United States does not respond in the way that it should, people are going to come to grips with the fact that it is the United States that is the danger — American imperialism is the source of the danger of war. On the question of NORAD, our position has been for many years for the withdrawal of Canada from NATO and NORAD. With the Star Wars proposal from the United States and the billions — of dollars to be spent on it there are new questions about Canada’s role in NORAD. : Several peace organizations in this country have initiated campaigns to have the ABM clause that was taken out several years ago on the initiative of the United States, reinserted in the agreement. Toronto Disarmament Network, for example, has a card cam- paign to members of parliament: Keep Star Wars out of Canada. We in the Peace Congress see this as positive if this could be accomplished. But we feel that it’s not good enough at this time. There is no question Star Wars is linked to NORAD and, in our opinion, those whoare opposedto Star Wars must be opposed to NORAD. The Peace Congress will be produc- ing a leafiet for mass distribution which will explain the interrelationship be- tween NORAD and Star Wars, and the need for Canada to withdraw from NORAD. As well, we have produced a button which we’ll be using widely. I think that everyone who has been involved with building the Canadian Peace Alliance feels that it has been a \ very positive development bringing to- gether large numbers of people who are concerned about peace — peace groups, the labor movement, women’s organizations and so forth. The key point — apart from its being a historic development — is the achievement of unity. Those issues it could not get agree- ment on, it set aside. It has shown that there are possibilities if people are con- cerned, to unite around common goals and aims and then to work around those goals and set aside their differences. Overall, I think what is going to hap- pen is that the Canadian Government is going to have to deal with a far more _ sophisticated peace movement than in the past. They are not going to be able to out-manoeuvre the peace movement and offer nice clichés while continuing the old policies. The struggle is going to be intensified and on a higher level in 1986. It is Un- ited Nations International Year of Peace and, besides the manifestations that have become traditional in many parts of Canada, there will be in the middle of October, with Canadians tak- ing part, a gathering in Copenhagen, entitled the World Congress Devoted to the International Year of Peace. YEAR? | issue of nuclear weapons and their elimination is the cutting edge, the pro- posal envisions a 180-degree turn in international goals and conduct of states. It proposes cessation of the develop- ment, manufacture and deployment of space-based weapons. It proposes a ban on development and production of chem- ical weapons and destruction of stock- piles and the industrial base for their manufacture. Simultaneously, the USSR suggests active steps be taken to stop the destruc- tion of the environment, that humankind launch a united search for new energy sources and together attack world economic backwardness, hunger and disease. In short, the Soviet Union’s plan meets all the criteria of the United Na- tions’ International Year of Peace. * * * While the 15-year plan is placed before the entire world, its chance for success lies to a large degree in the response by the capitalist states and particularly the United States. - The Toronto Globe & Mail, Jan. 17 grasped this essential when it wrote editorially: *‘United States President Reagan wants a world in which nuclear arms will be ‘impotent and obsolete’ by circa 2000 A.D., and counts on the Star Wars project to achieve it. Deployment of a space-based anti-missile shield by both superpowers would make each in- vulnerable, he believes, and would thus deprive offensive nukes of their utility. **Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev has a less convoluted approach: the easiest way to eliminate the nuclear threat, he maintains, is simply to scrap the weapons. Period, And this week he has proposed a phased, 15-year timetable by which the superpowers would do exactly that.”’ At face value, logic would dictate that were there no nuclear weapons aimed at States, Star Wars itself would be an ex- pensive white elephant, in place to de- fend against a non-existent threat. And that’s exactly the point. But there’s a catch, and this is where Washington has a problem: Star Wars never was designed as an international missile shield. Its purpose is to build a Shield from which which the United States, based on its triad nuclear punch, could eventually deliver a telling first strike against the USSR and socialist world. The modernization of NATO’s nuclear attack arsenal being built side by side with the Star Wars ‘‘shield’’ fools few astute observers and certainly not Soviet defence experts. The Soviet Union’s overall plan, therefore, contains the vital prerequisite that the U.S. abandon SDI, that it join with all nations through the United Na- tions to proclaim outer space as a zone of Peace, cooperation and development. “Star peace, not Star wars,” was the way the USSR United Nations repre- sentative put it last autumn in advancing a comprehensive plan for peaceful space development before the world body. * * * By linking together nuclear disarma- ment, elimination and destruction of all weapons of mass destruction, peaceful development of space, conversion to- ward world economic and social development, an attack on hunger, dis- ease and poverty, the Soviet Union has captured the high ground as 1986 begins. Theirs is an eminently human pro- posal, a highly workable and logical plan. It corresponds with the deepest desires and needs of humanity. It offers hope, not despair. It is a fitting start for the UN’s TYP. We must not miss this opportunity. 6 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 29, 1986 Fee ae