a epee, ot Tee Wide-ranging offer to end arms race, build detente On Jan. 6, 1983 the Warsaw Pact nations, meeting in Prague, issued a wide-ranging, comprehensive peace plan aimed at stopping the spiralling arms race which includes concrete proposals for arms reduction and con- trol, the strengthening of the United Nations and for improving the international political climate. Initial reaction from NATO states has been guarded with efforts to portray the peace plan as a ‘propaganda ploy’. U.S. president Reagan, however, called the plan “something to be considered”? and has sent Vice Presi- dent Bush to Europe to consult with NATO allies. In the German Federal Republic, which faces an elec- tion in March, the issue of NATO plans to deploy new Pershing-2 and Cruise missiles in Western Europe this year looms as a major issue. Following massive anti-mis- sile demonstrations, a recent public opinion poll shows 61% opposed to the missile deployment plan. ‘The Warsaw Pact peace plan’s key proposals were outlined in the U.S. Daily World, Jan. 7. Among the items offered for consideration and response by NATO States are: e A proposal to conclude a treaty on the mutual non- use of military force and on the maintenance of relations of peace. : ‘Mutual commitment’ The statement reads: ‘The core of this treaty could be the mutual commitment of the member states of both alliances not to be the first to use either nuclear or conventional weapons against each other, nor any mili- tary force at all. “This commitment could apply to the territories of all the other states joining the treaty, and also their military and civilian personnel, sea-going, air and space craft and ae objects belonging to them, wherever they may Also included in such a treaty would be ‘‘a commit- ment on the non-use of force by the member states of both alliances against third countries, whether those hav- ing bilateral relations of alliance with them, or non- alenes or neutral countries,”’ according to the state- ment. “Another substantial component of the treaty could be the commitment of the member states of both alli- ances not to jeopardize the safety of international sea, air and space communications passing through areas out- side any national jurisdiction,”’ added the statement. Such a treaty would include the commitment to con- duct goodwill talks on effective measures to end the arms race, to jointly examine practical measures to avert the threat of a surprise attack and to strengthen the United Nations as a universal instrument of collective security. Limit Nuclear Arms ry A proposal for practical agreement on an end to escalating military spending and on its subsequent reduction in both percentages and absolute values. “The resources released as a result of cutbacks in military spending would be uséd to promote economic and social development, in particular, to assist the developing countries in this field,” the offer says, and adds that “the participants in the (Warsaw treaty states) meeting make a reminder that the proposals of their States on the non-escalation and substantial reduction of military spending, made jointly or individually, remain in force."’ Again, they call for direct talks without delay. e A proposal to completely rid Europe of nuclear weapons, both medium-range and tactical. The statement continues, “If this truly ‘zero’ decision cannot be reached at the moment, it is feasible to take the way of the radical reduction of medium-range nuclear _ Systems in Europe on the basis of the principle of equal- ity and equal security. In this respect the importance of the Soviet-U.S. talks on the limitation of nuclear weapons in Europe is very great.’ The statement notes the serious threat posed to the European nations by the NATO intention to deploy new U.S. medium-range weapons in a number of West Euro- pean countries this year. ‘‘Given such an approach, which is equivalent to fixing an artificial deadline ‘for (current) talks, it will be enough for its proponents to continue to procrastinate them so as to use the lack of agreement as a pretext to begin the actual deployment.” Chemical Weapons e A proposal to rid Europe of another type of weapon of mass destruction, chemical weapons. The Warsaw Treaty states pledged their willingness “to examine together with other interested states all the possible ways and means leading to the solution of this problem, and to enter appropriate negotiations.’ e To make fresh efforts to substantially lower the Present levels of conventional arms and armed forces both on a global scale and in individual regions. The statement calls for talks aimed at this purpose as well as on limiting the sales and supplies of conventional weapons. Among the many other proposals included in this peace offer are the setting up of nuclear free zones in the North of Europe, the Balkans, other parts of the contin- ent, and to turn the Mediterranean into a zone of peace and cooperation; drafting a treaty on the complete and universal prohibition of nuclear weapons tests and pro- hibiting the deployment of weapons of any type in outer space. - These proposals are given, along with a detailed analysis of the world situation and the factors involved in turning the drive towards war and destruction into a movement for. peace and detente among nations. ° “The tangible progress in improving international relations which began to influence the general develop- ment of world affairs during the 1970s has now been jeopardized ... cooperation is being replaced by con- frontation,’’ the offer says. No Winners in War The statement stresses the benefits of friendly rela- tions among countries, both in Overcoming economic, ecological and social problems as well as averting the growing threat of nuclear war. ° The arms buildup, planned and already being carried out by the U.S. and some of its allies, is criticized as “leading to the frustration of international Stability.” The entire concept of nuclear superiority, desired by the U.S. is thoroughly discredited. The statement declares that “strategic concepts and doctrines, such as those of the ‘first disarming nuclear strike,’ ‘limited nuclear war,’ ‘protracted nuclear con- flict’ . .. are based on the assumption that it is possible to win a nuclear war through the first use of nuclear weapons. ‘The states represented at the meeting stress most forcefully that to hope to unleash a nuclear war and to win it is nonsensical. There can be no winners in a nuclear war once it breaks out,’’ the statement says. “Military policy based on such hopes inseparably entails other very dangerous consequences.” Among these consequences are the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons systems, the dis- ruption of now-existing military parity and growth in the difficulty of drafting international agreements to limit more and more sophisticated weaponry. The Warsaw Treaty states reject such a path. “‘It is necessary to act (for peace) without delay,’’ the statement says. Peace Forces Stronger The statement notes that ‘‘the lessening of the threat of war is impossible without the creation of a climate of trust in relations between states.” In this light they call for ‘‘renunciation of claims to the great-power status and ‘ __ Warsaw Pact peace proposals the propagation of racism, chauvinism and national exclusivenéss, of attempts to teach other peoples how te arrange their lives, and professing of violence and in- citement of war psychosis.”’ The statement calls for ‘‘the eradication of under- development (and) ensuring the > complete sovereignty of countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania over their natural resources ... Peace caf only be firm if it is just, with every state recognizing and respecting the legitimate rights and interests of all others.”’ The Israeli invasion of Lebanon is denounced and 3 call for peace in the Middle East is made. As well, the statement calls for the ‘‘elimination of all the vestiges of colonialism and racism, renunciation of the policy of neocolonialism, oppression and exploitation of other peoples. The tremendous peace movements comprised of the peoples of the world are applauded as the mandate for all governments. “‘The forces of peace are stronger than the forces for war,’’ the statement says. Canada should not miss opportunity “The proposal emanating from a meeting of the Warsaw Pact states calling for a non-aggression pact between it and NATO will be widely wel- comed, showing again the determination of the Warsaw Pact countries to prevent the outbreak ofa nuclear catastrophe,’’ saysethe Communist Party of Canada in a press statement Jan. 7. The CPC’s Central Executive Committee con- tinues: The warhawks have for some time striven to get the support of the people for their drive for world domination based on military superiority, around the myth of the ‘threat of Soviet ageression’’. How hollow that threat is, can be seen by the consistent measures taken by the Soviet Union to _end and reverse the arms race to prevent a nuclear war. It is the Soviet Union that has halted the de- ployment and reduced the number of its medium range nuclear weapons. The same country renounced first use of nuclear weapons. | It is the Soviet Union that has proposed a freeze: of the arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons pro- vided the U.S. does likewise, as a firm basis for disarmament négotiations. And what has been the response of the Reagan - Administration and its supporters in NATO to all those Soviet Union peace and disarmament initia- tives? E “Limited” nuclear war. Protracted nuclear war. An accelerated arms race. MX missiles. New sys- tems of nuclear missiles for submarines and for the airforce. Now the Warsaw Pact countries have advanced further proposals to save peace — a non-aggres- sion pact. What is the initial response of the USA and of NATO so far? No. _And so, at this most crucial moment for human- kind, the world once again has evidence of the peaceableness of the foreign policies of the-social- ist countries and the dangerous and adventurist . policies of U.S. imperialism. Will Canada line up with Reagan and the threat of nuclear war, or in support of peace initiatives that lessen that threat? It is for the Canadian people to decide. They must compel the Trudeau Government to come out in support of the non-aggression pact. Clearly only . Massive people’s intervention in Canada can make the government adopt a truly Canadian policy for peace. Just as on a world scale only a massive people’s intervention can change the Situation, compel the U.S. Government to begin negotiations with the USSR with the aim of stopping the arms Tace based on equality and equality of security, and open the door to a world without arms. The peoples of the world have the strength and the power to do exactly that. The Warsaw Pact countries have given the peoplé of Canada another possibility to strengthen the fight for peace. They must not miss that opportunity. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JANUARY 21, 1983—Page 10 ’