World | Brighter future seen for world peace body Delegates from both the Canadian Peace Congress and the Conseil Quebecois de la Paix (COP) attended the Athens’ session of the World Peace Council in early February. The following comments, by Pierre Tellier, vice-president of the CQP, express the view of that organization. They are from an interview conducted for _L’Alternative by Claire Da Sylva. The patient’s condition is now stable but it will take considerable effort to restore him to health. I think there was an important change with respect to the WPC’s very structure: a reduction in the size of the executive, which now becomes the General Council; greater emphasis on work at the regional level and a decision to focus fund raising efforts in the regions. This is healthy and may attract more new members. People will feel a more democratic spirit in the WPC. But much work remains to be done, especially on the statutes and rules of order, before we can achieve the goal of creating a truly democratic atmos- phere. The age of easily achieved broad consensus on peace is past. The motions are a lot more down to earth than they were before. Tighter rules of order are necessary to ensure that the will of the WPC’s govern- ing bodies is accurately expressed. As for funding, we heard some grand ideas but there weren’t many concrete proposals. Members in all regions will have to show imagination if we want the WPC and its various national committees to survive. A certain re-orientation is emerging. There is widespread concern for the envir- onment and this links up with the peace movement’s concerns. As was said at the assembly, this does not mean that the peace movement should become the spokesperson of very close relationship could be established between both peace — movements with fruitful results. We must now ensure that in- creased decentralization to the rently under way, is real and effec- tive. For we can decentralize but if ‘The peace s make an extra effort to fund the movement will have wc Rather they will divide up the Lebanon is still a powder keg. Clear progress has been made in Africa but there too we are still far from the abolition of apartheid, which threatens the peace in all of Southern Africa. There is also the turmoil in the Soviet republics. Will the desire of some republics to secede lead to internal civil wars and threaten peace in the region? But there are people who prefer to look to their own country, or region saying “Let’s forget about what’s happening elsewhere.” We wonder how they can think this way. In any event, I’m convinced that while Romesh Chandra’s tenure as president caused considerable demobilization in the rich countries, this was not the case in the developing countries.. They viewed Chan- dra’s departure from the presidency of the movement with much sadness and regret. He is now only honorary president. Some people think this means the break-up of the movement. For example, the Latin Americans, who held regional meetings, kept voicing the fear that WPC could disappear, for financial reasons among others. The USSR and East European countries, which used to give the WPC substantial financial support, will practically stop funding it. The Soviet Peace Commit- tee used to be the biggest contributor, which made the CIA say that the WPC was nothing but a tool of the KGB or Moscow. But whatever people say, the reduc- tion of Soviet domination reduces the participation of developing countries. But it’s not just up to the Soviets. The rich countries of Europe and North America are not going to money in their region, significantly _ the environment movements. Buta to broaden its scope cutting the participation of Africa, and attack the problem of regions, an important reform cur- militarization, giving level. Asian and Central American coun- tries. Developing countries may be able to participate at the regional level, but many will no longer be able to participate at the world It is difficult for me to talk about the future of the WPC as regards the nothing happens in the regions we serious rest of North America. But as far as will only have weakened and may be ss 2 = the CQP is concerned, I think we even killed the WPC and that willbe Consideration to its will have to assume a unifying role in a great shame. There are still people in various groups affiliated to the WPC who remain very skeptical of its useful- ness. We find them in the U.S., Eng- lish Canada, Finland, Czechoslov- akia, Sweden and England. effects on the environment, health tion and especially financing. We and education.’ the peace movement without attempt- ing to integrate the various groups. We must concentrate on coordina- will have to launch serious fund rais- ing campaigns to better finance and organize our movement in Quebec There are cyen some among them 2 aig 757: ETT AT OT Wer ee and also to contribute a bit more to who would like to do away with the WPC. We don’t — the WPC than we doat present, so as to help it survive really understand this. They reproach the organiza- tion for lack of democracy, but when it is time to make an effort and seriously consider effective reforms, they’re not very motivated to do so. We are also seeing a certain “small is beautiful” trend: “‘we’ll make peace in our regions.” But peace is a global question, not a regional one. As CQP presi- dent Jean St. Denis says, we must not “deglobalize” the peace movement. It is still essential that we remain a world movement but people have to want it. Trying to make it a regional movement practically amounts to saying we no longer want to have a peace move- ment. There are also people who say we are seeing a significant easing of east-west tensions. But they are forgetting the whole north-south axis. They are forget- ting the developing countries and the violence in those countries, which constitutes a threat to peace. They are forgetting about the rich countries’ cuts in devel- opment aid; the reduction in internation co-opera- tion; the huge problem of foreign debt. Whatever our _ views on these issues, they represent a threat to peace. There is still much aggression in the air, especially on the part of the U.S. towards Latin America. It takes many forms. There was the invasion of Panama, the systematic threat against Cuba, the funding of the contras to attack Nicaragua. On top of that there is now the U.S. funding of opposition parties in Latin America. Regimes like the one in El Salvador are a threat to peace. and perform its extremely important international watch-dog role. Also Canada’s defence budget has just been main- tained at existing levels, unlike money for Natives, research, health and education. The peace movement will have to broaden its scope and attack the problem of militarization, giving serious consideration to its effects on the environment, health and education. In Quebec, the peace movement will have to focus more on education so as to build a society that truly wants to live in peace. I managed to get the Athens assembly to pass a resolution condemning the militarization of the far north, in accordance with a resolution passed at the Nordic Peace Conference. I also launched an appeal to all the countries with Nordic or polar territories to set up an international committee for the demilitariza- tion of Nordic and polar regions. As the CQP received a mandate to this effect from the NPC, we have to follow up on the effort. The Athens’ assembly gave its support to the idea of a second Helsinki Conference and negotiations on conventional weapons. The groups present decided to step up regional centres around the world to improve the quality of work and of financial planning. New tules adopted will also allow any local organization, whether it be a peace group, trade union, or other body, to join the WPC directly, without going through a national member committee. A recruiting campaign has begun. World News FCP queries one Germany By TOM FOLEY The prospect of a unified Germany is causing serious concern in Europe, especially in France. The Communist Party (FCP) group in the French National Assembly has demanded ‘convening of a special session to discuss the issue, which the FCP has termed a catastrophe for France. “The German people have the right to determine their own future,” FCP General Secretary Georges Marchais told a TV interviewer recently.” It is well known that they are in the majority favorable to reunifi- cation, and this will probably occur. “But France is concerned,” Marchais emphasized. “The first aspect is that, according to the economic and financial plans, ‘Greater Germany’ will mean France is crushed. As a result, how will we react, r how will we give to our economy the dyna- _. mism which will be necessary for it to re- MARS AS cover its place as a great economic power in Europe? If this is not done, France and the French will suffer hard consequences. “The second aspect is that “Greater Germany’ will be the second biggest military power in Europe, next to the Soviet Union in conventional arms,” the FCP general secretary said. “For this reason I am against ‘Greater Germany’ joining NATO. A neutral Germany is a guarantee not only for the French people but for all other European peoples as well.” Marchais emphasized that “such an important question .. should go to the French people ... The French people must give their views on this question. The future of France is at stake.” In an interview with the Paris daily La Croix, Maxime Germetz, member of the FCP political bureau, elaborated on the two themes. “We are for the right to self-determination of the German people,” Gremetz pointed out, “which is equal to the right to security of all peoples.” But, he said, “self-determination is being discussed when in fact what is really confronting us, in the spirit of Chancellor Helmut Kohl of the Federal Republic of Germany, is a return to the unity of ‘Greater Germany.” - “This is clear from Kohl’s refusal to endorse the post-Second World War borders. In our (FCP) declaration, we clearly explained that our preference is for the continued existence of the two Ger- man states.” he said. Vote results await runoff By CARL BLOICE MOSCOW — Although it has not deterred speculation, it is much too early to say who won the March 4 elections in the three Slavic republics of the Soviet Union. The problem isn’t that the returns are not in, but that, with the vast majority of the contest still to be decided, it is impossible to speak of anything like a political trend. The results of the first round of voting do, however, indicate that the newly elected Soviets — or governing councils — at the local, regional and republican levels of the three republics will be markedly different from the outgoing ones. Whether elected on Communist Party platforms or from lists endorsed by new inde- pendent groups, new and younger people have emerged. Voters, who went to the polls March 4 in the Russian Federation, the Ukraine and Byelorussia, elected both Communist Party offi- cials and representatives of new independent groups and various fronts. Included were candidates endorsed by the movement Democratic Russia. Many of those already elected were contestants in what might be considered “safe districts” — areas without well-known candi- dates reflecting opposing points of view. Ina not unexpected upset, voters in Leningrad rejected two CPSU officials. Significantly, while a number of candidates of the Democratic Russia bloc emerged victorious after Sunday’s voting, there were also winners from the conservative Russian nationalist end of the political spectrum. In the Russian Federation, 113 out of 1,068 deputy seats were filled in the first round of balloting. Those elected include a large number of economic managers and party leaders. In the Ukraine, where 3,000 candidates vied for 450 seats, 112 were filled. The winners include a number of top CPSU and government leaders, most of whom were elected outside major population centres. Only one was elected in Kiev, the republic’s capital. Two ironic factors in the election returns await analysis. While voter turnout was high in the country as a whole, in a number of places, fewer than half of the eligible voters cast ballots. In order for a candidate to win election, he or she must garner one vote over 50 percent of all eligible voters. These areas face new nominations and elections. Pacific Tribune, March 19, 1990 « 7 —