ERLIN — The foreign ministers of
‘Warsaw Pact countries, meeting in
lar session here this past week, wel-
d U.S.-Soviet agreement on the
Ing of negotiations between the two
Ountries in January and declared that
world can only choose between
€ and self-destruction.

he participating states, the USSR,
GDR, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria,
sungary and Czechoslovakia, issued a
uniqué which set out the socialist
tries’ concept of what was en-
ring international security and
was needed to guarantee peace.

__ Their final Communiqué gave the lie to
Media inventions and psychological
paganda launched in some western
tals — especially in Washington —
bOut the aims and attitudes of the social-
Ountries on the question of high level
Otiations and peace. It also debunked
tern claims about divergences in the
alist. camp on coexistence and
Otiations between East and West.
‘ith a united voice, the Warsaw Pact
ign ministers emphasized, “their
ern that the dangerous tensions in
Ope and the world remain”. They
d what the Ministers considered the
h causes of the continuing tensions:
Through the further stationing of
Tican medium range rockets in some
t European NATO countries, the
tion in Europe has been further
pened’’, the communiqué said.
has introduced an_ especially
€rous phase of the armaments race
€ continent.” es
Second factor, the communique
Was the resurgence of revanchism,
¢ demand for reversing of the results
last war, reshaping of Europe’s

WARSAW PACT STATES CALL ON NATO:

educe military confrontation

From Berlin
Fils Delisle

borders and of the ‘‘political and terri-

torial realities’’ that emerged from the ©

war. The communiqué declared: ‘‘The
activating of the revanchist forces in the
FRG and the encouraging of revanchism
wherever it may appear have a negative
effect on the political climate in Europe
and on understanding between the Euro-
pean peoples.”

The communiqué said the foreign
ministers “‘expressed their concern at
the stepping up of the policy of violence
and dictation by imperialist ciricles.”’
They also noted that nuclear weapons
were being piled up to a fantastic extent,
new systems of weapons were being
sought, the dangerous doctrine of the
permissibility of a nuclear war was being
promoted. (Meeting at the same moment
in Brussels, NATO defence ministers
approved an $8-billion increase in arms

spending on infrastructure, a 40 per cent’

jump over previous spending on this pro-
gram — Ed.) i

_ The communiqué said: ‘‘The USA and
some of its allies do not hide the fact that
their actions are designed to achieve mili-
tary superiority for them.’’ The stand-
point of the socialist powers on this ques-
tion, the communiqué made clear, was
that.such a goal was an illusion. ‘‘The
member states of the Warsaw Pact coun-
tries,’ the communiqué said, ‘‘em-
phasize that they do not aspire to military
superiority but at the same time declare
they will not permit such superiority over
themselves. They stand for a balance of
power at a low level.”’

. these questions,” the communiqué went

_ increase.

The communiqué called for agreement
on non-interference of one state in the
affairs of another, recognition of the fact
that disarmament is ‘‘the basic question
of our time’’, the reduction of military
confrontation in international relations
and the return ‘‘to mutually advantage-
ous cooperation between the states”’ and
between countries with different social
systems.

The foreign ministers, the commu-
niqué said, hope that the January meet-
ing between Soviet Foreign Minister
Andrei Gromyko and U.S. Secretary of
State George Shultz will lead to
“negotiations on the whole complex of
questions involving nuclear and space
weapons.”’

“They attach great significance to

on. “The states of the Warsaw Pact pro-
pose that from the very beginning the
aims and tasks of these negotiations.
should be clearly determined, negotia-
tions which are called upon to
strengthen stability, to prevent the mili-
tarization of space, to reduce the level of
nuclear confrontation in Europe and the
world by the reduction of nuclear
weapons — strategic as well as medium
range rockets — up to the full abolition of
nuclear weapons.”

If the militarization of space is not pre-
vented, the communiqué warned, the
risk of a nuclear war and the piling up of
nuclear weapons would significantly

The foreign ministers proposed further
that all countries pledge themselves not
to launch war and that all with nuclear
weapons have the duty of undertaking
not to use them in a first strike against
others, :

U.S. agenda
‘fulfilled in
Grenada vote

Herbert Blaize’s New National Par-
ty, a coalition hammered together by
the U.S., won 14 of Grenada’s 15
parliamentary seats Dec. 3, fulfilling
the State Department’s agenda which
began with the invasion of the island
in October, 1983. :

Prime Minister-elect Blaize im-
mediately called on the U.S., in a let-
ter to Reagan, not to withdraw occu-
pation troops until at least next March
when “‘a fully-trained police force” is
ready.

~ Former Prime Minister Eric
Gairy’s Grenada United Labor Party
elected one member who promptly re-
signed his seat charging, as did the
Maurice Bishop Patriotic Movement,
that voting irregularities had taken

| place.

Blaize, who was the country’s
Prime Minister from 1962 until 1967,
received massive U.S. financial and
organizational backing from both the
U.S. government and the AFL-CIO’s
American Institute for Free Labor
Development (AIFLD) who paraded
him as a ‘‘moderate’’ between the
Gairy’s GULP and the MBPM.
Blaize’s tone is set: He will take his
time naming a cabinet; he will keep
occupation troops; the NNP will have

‘no parliamentary opposition, and he

called for a special ecumenical cele-

bration to ‘‘dedicate this land to the

service of Almighty God.’’ :
The new PM immediately declared

" a public holiday Dec. 5 and news re-

ports tell of ‘‘a land plastered with
Reagan-Bush 84 stickers’’.

ce Ronald Reagan entered office four years ago, he
isplayed an almost obsessive preoccupation with
Soviet threat’. The propaganda buildup launched
S$ administration has matched the physical escala-

d term is assured, the anti-Soviet crusade seems
d to leap into the realm of pure fantasy.
ently, defending his military budget before Con-

T, made a claim that is positively Orwellian in its

Cations. Even though U.S.. military spending has
bled in the past five years, he said, the Soviet menace
Own faster, and ‘‘the United States is further be-
N every significant category than it was five years

What this means is that the Reagan administration,
on very sound factual ground in its assessments of
t military power, has now departed from reality
ther. The ‘‘Soviet threat’ no longer has anything
Temotely to do with the USSR; whatever increase
he military. budget Reagan & Co. desire, that is how
Ch the ‘‘Soviet threat’ has grown.
W agencies in Washington have failed to get com-
into this spirit — the CIA, for example, which still
on trying to compute actual Soviet ‘spending
This year, the CIA reported that Soviet military
ditures have grown by no more than 2 per cent
y since 1976. By contrast, U.S. spending is up 18

a (1982-89) will total $2.6-trillion, more than all
mbined U.S. defence budgets of the previous 35

Ough it will robably make no difference to the
pris Washington, a sober, realistic evaluation of
.S.-Soviet military balance has recently been is-

‘< “a . ity. x
Now surging toward military superiority
Mn strategic nuclear weapons, the arena in hae
n claims the Soviets have made the “‘bigges

IS” in-t that:
in-recent years, the report tells us
le United States can explode more than 13,000

f military power that he set in motion. Now that his —

, Reagan’s Secretary of Defence, Caspar Wein-_

nt in Fiscal Year 1985. The Reagan arms extra-_

build-up ‘Orwellian’

News

__ Analysis @

Fred Weir

nuclear weapons on the Soviet Union; the Soviets can

explode about 8,500 nuclear weapons on the U.S.”

_ Far from increasing, ‘‘the number of Soviet inter-
continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) has declined.
They have 1,398 now, whereas nine years ago they had
1,600’.

In addition to being ahead in numbers of weapons, the
U.S. is also ahead in technology. On this matter, a ques-
tion put to Secretary Weinberger in the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee recently drew a revealing reply:

_ Senator Charles Percy: ‘“‘Would you rather have at
your disposal the U.S. nuclear arsenal or the Soviet
nuclear arsenal?’’

Secretary of Defence Weinberger: “‘ . .. I would not for’

a moment exchange anything, because we have an im-
“mense edge in technology”’. -

e On the subject of conventional military strength in
the European theatre, where some of the wildest Rea-
ganite exaggerations have occurred, the report says
bluntly that, ‘“‘NATO leads the Warsaw Pact in military
spending, military manpower in uniform and total
ground forces in Europe’’.

Although the Warsaw Pact maintains larger tank
forces than does the West — a fact often cited — the
Teport notes that “NATO has invested heavily in anti-
tank weapons and leads the Warsaw Pact in both the
quantity and quality of such weapons. NATO deploys
over 50 varieties of anti-tank weapons, a total of more
than 400,000”. :

On airpower in Europe: “NATO and the Warsaw Pact _

have approximately the same number of total combat
aircraft’’. However, it adds, ‘‘U.S. tactical air forces
retain a qualitative advantage over those of the Soviet
Union’’.

Where They Stand: Military Resources
of NATO, Warsaw Pact and People’s Republic of China

; : _NATO* Warsaw Pact —China
Population 630 million 383 million 1 Billion
GNP $6,132 Billion $2,257 Billion $698 Billion
Military Spending $312 Billion $300 Billion $49 Billion
Military Manpower 5.9 million 4.7 milliont 4 million
Nuclear Weapons 11,190 8,240 c. 200
Total /

Nuclear Weapons 26-31,000 18-23,000 200-300
Tanks 30,000 - 64,000 12,000
Anti-Tank Weapons 400,000+ Not Available
Armored Vehicles - 54,000 80,000 4,800

Artillery 24,000 48,000 16,700
teak Alrcraft 11,200, 11,000 6,000
Helicopters 12,700 4,400 2 390
Major - :

Surface Warships 477 ‘ 314 44
Attack Submarines 241 299 106
*NATO totals include France and Spain. :

tExcludes border guards, i i ity, railroad and construction troops.
Sources: NATO, ACDA, DOD, CIA, lISS, CDI.

e Finally, on the subject of Soviet naval might, a
major bugaboo of the Reagan administration, the report
says,

“The U.S. and other NATO navies have twice the
naval tonnage and several times the firepower of the

- combined Soviet and other Warsaw Pact navies.

“The Soviet navy, which started far behind us, has
been declining in size recently, not increasing. Soviet

_ warship production has slowed. From 1980-82 the U.S.

and its allies built 38 more warships displacing 230,000
more tons than the USSR and its allies built’’.

Such facts have the power to astonish many people.
This is because they conflict so sharply with the pro-
paganda imagery that seems to envelop our daily lives.
Yet facts they undeniably are: the Centre for Defence
Information compiled its report using only data drawn
from official sources, such as the U.S. Dept. of Defence,
the CIA; and NATO. :

The report is entitled ‘‘U.S.-Soviet Military Facts’’,

and can be obtained from the Centre for Defence Infor-

mation, 303 Capitol Gallery West, 600 Maryland Ave.
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, DECEMBER 19, 1984 e 17.

settee

ares

nei