WORLD BERLIN — Canada and the GDR are determined to work actively for co- existence, the ending of confrontation between the great powers, the opening of a dialogue between the socialist and capitalist countries, the strengthening of peace and the banishing of the spectre of nuclear war. That was the pledge made here by Prime Minister Trudeau and Erich Hon- ecker, Chairman of the GDR’s State Council, during their consultations and public declarations that attracted wide international interest. The Canadian Prime Minister’s visit here, his trips to the other socialist capi- tals of Prague and Bucharest and his clear stand for measures to bring about genuine dialogue between East and West were seen by many people here as a sig- nificant and positive trend in world affairs. Journalists from many countries were on hand for Trudeau’s visit including a group of 25 from the leading Canadian HONECKER... for ways toward a more normal inter- national development. It is necessary to search media. Many of them, still lagging behind in the icy atmosphere of the cold war, kept asking what the Canadian Prime Minister was looking for. To get the ans- wer, this correspondent put the question directy to Trudeau at a press conference. My question was: “‘Is it correct to say that the aim of your initiatives is to re- place confrontation by negotiations?”’ The Prime Minister replied: “Yes, that is a fair summary of the aim of the initia- tives. We have had confrontation in word and in deeds. But there are a number of proposals made in the Prague Declaration of the Warsaw Pact states (January, 1983) and in the declaration of the leaders of the socialist countries in Moscow last June which we in the west should find acceptable. There are also some NATO proposals which the War- saw Pact countries could discuss. What we are trying to do is to go from con- frontation to negotiation.”’ It was necessary, he said, to move out of the situation the world finds itself in today and to start building a relationship of trust and confidence between the powers that could eventually lead to the renunciation by treaty of all nuclear first-strikes and other forms of military aggression. Asked if the public championing of such a viewpoint might not irritate the leaders of some countries allied to Cana- da, the Prime Minister said, ‘‘that does not concern me.”’ Though the consultations between Trudeau and Honecker were not public, the participants themselves and other authoritative sources have provided de- tailed information on what was discussed , between them. Prime Minister Trudeau opened his presentation witha statement of his views on the lessening of inter- national tensions, the bringing about of a dialogue between East and West, the building up of a better atmosphere bet- From Berlin-: Fils Delisle ween the two sides and the ending of the arms race. He proposed the calling of a five-power conference of the countries possessing nuclear weapons, under the sponsorship of the UN Secretary Gener- al. The aim of the conference would be to achieve global limitation of nuclear armaments, the firm implementing of the treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the prohibition of anti-satellite Weapons systems in space and similar measures. It was necessary to work, Trudeau said, for an acceptable relationship be- tween countries with differing social sys- tems. He felt that the past should be left behind and that mutual trust be de- veloped on the basis of the recognition that the existence in the world of states with differing social systems is a reality that has to be accepted. Both Trudeau and Honecker ex- pressed the belief that the opening of the Stockholm Conference was a hopeful development and that it could do muchto improve the situation in Europe. At a dinner for the Canadian Prime Minister and his delegation, Honecker — declared: ‘‘ Your visit, Mr. Prime Minis- ter, is an event the significance of which extends far beyond the borders of our two countries. It comes at a time when.it is necessary to search for ways to bring back international relations to a more normal, more fruitful development. We attach great significance to your initia- _ tives. We will support you through joint or parallel measures.”’ The GDR, Honecker said, agrees with a group of proposals the Canadian Prime Minister had made in private consulta- tions. These included: the calling of a conference of the five powers possessing trade restrictions against socialist TRUDEAU ... What we are trying to do is go from confrontation to negotiation. nuclear weapons; the global limitation of armaments; non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; a balance of power between the two main blocs; the prohibition of weapons in space; a permanent dialogue _ between East and West, especially bet-— ween the USSR and the USA; areturn to © the replacing of international tensions; more economic cooperation between East and West; the prohibition of nuclear weapons tests; the prohibition of chemi cal weapons; refusal to produce or sta tion nuclear weapons in Canada. ‘All that has our complete support,’ Honecker said. That this trend has support inter nationally was strengthened by the visi here four days earlier by French Foreign — Minister Claude Cheysson. In talks with — Honecker, GDR Foreign Minister Oskar Fischer and other GDR officials, Cheys- son called for the strengthening of ties — between France and the GDR and de- — nounced efforts to set up boycotts and countries. Rr EN Wanner eruR ee Fy HN j Who is using scare tactics? By FRED WEIR Right-wing critics have lately been complaining that the peace movement is indulging in ‘“‘scare tactics’. They cite films such as If You Love This Planet and The Day After as examples of how the advocates of dis- armament are trying to ‘“‘indoctrinate’’ people by “‘paraly zing them with fear’’. As Henry Kissinger con- temptuously remarked during the discussion on ABC following The Day After, ‘‘This film presents a very simple-minded notion of the nuclear problem. Are we supposed to make policy by scaring ourselves to death?”’ In fact, if such realistic efforts to depict the aftermath ofa nuclear exchange have done anything, it has been to heighten awareness and intensify debate around the is- sues. Yet the charge of ‘‘scaremongering’’, coming as it does from the White House, the Tory party of Canada, and assorted right-wing demagogues and journalists, is a curious one inasmuch as it has been precisely these people who have made psychological terror the very essence of Cold War politics. Orchestrated Panic The historical record shows that every upsurge in the arms race has been accompanied by a ‘‘Soviet threat”’ propaganda campaign of such shrill emotionalism and such exaggerated dimensions that vast numbers of people have been literally scared into supporting, or acquiescing to, the policies of arms build-up and global confrontation. Consider the ‘“‘bomber gap”’ of the mid-1950s. It began when the U.S. Airforce leaked ‘‘secret’’ intelligence reports which pointed to an overwhelming Soviet superiority in intercontinental bombers. A special presi- dential commission reported that the U.S. would soon be “‘wide open’’ to a Soviet ‘‘bolt from the blue’’. In the 8 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, FEBRUARY 8, 1984 ‘sands”’ "magazine warned that ‘‘if we do not solve the missile carefully orchestrated “‘panic’”’ that ensued, the real pos- sibilities for negotiated agreement at the Geneva Summit in 1955 were swept aside. The U.S. spent billions to beef up the Strategic Air Command. However, we now know that the ““bomber gap’’, which was made to seem so real to so many people, was an elaborate fraud. At the time the stories began circulating the USSR did not even have ‘an operational bomber with intercontinental capability. By 1958, a bomber gap certainly did exist: five to one in America’ s favor! The ‘Spending Gap’ © Few people recall that John F. Kennedy was elected with the help ofa similar manipulation of public fears and prejudices. The 1960 presidential campaign was domi- nated by charges that a ‘‘missile gap’’ had developed, and that the USSR had ‘‘hundreds and perhaps thou- of ICBMs aimed at a helpless USA. Life problem, all other problems may soon become academic’’. Once again, the U.S. spent billions on a vast nuclear armament program: thousands of new land and submarine based missiles were added to the American arsenal. And once again history records that a ‘‘gap”’ did indeed exist. ‘At no time did the U.S. possess less than a 3 to 1 superiority in nuclear missile! Paranoid appeals to the ‘‘Soviet threat’? have been very much a part of the current Cold War revival. One of the best examples is the ‘‘spending gap’’ which has been used to justify skyrocketing military budgets under Car- ter and Reagan. In 1976, then-CIA Director George Bush reported that new estimates of Soviet military expendi- tures showed that the USSR had doubled its arms spend- ing. The widespread impression was created that the Soviet Union had embarked upon a massaive program of - Soviet economy! (see Toronto Star, Nov. 19, 1983) - consigned it to the trash-bin of history. military construction and expansion, leaving the United — States far behind. Yet only last September the CIA quietly ended its wild, roller-coaster assessments of — Soviet defence expenditures. In a report presented to the U.S. Congress’ Joint Economic Committee on Sept. 20, — the CIA cut by more than half its previous estimate of _ Soviet defence growth, and admitted that Soviet military — spending has never grown by more than 2 per cent per _ year — slower, in fact, than the rate of the growth of the And who can forget Ronald Reagan’s infamous ‘‘win- dow of vulnerability’’? He claimed that the military ba- lance was so skewed in the Soviets’ favor that ‘The Russians could just take us with a phone call’’. Last year Reagan’s own panel of experts — the Scowcrift Com- mission — debunked the ‘window of vulnerability’ and ‘Vulnerability Window’ The current wave of ‘‘Soviet threat’? hysteria has become so indecent that America’s senior diplomat, George F. Kennan, has felt compelled to remark: “‘I find the view of the Soviet Union that prevails today in large portions of our governmental and journalistic establish- ments so extreme, so subjective, so far removed from what any sober scrutiny of external reality would reveal, that it is not only ineffective but dangerous as a guide to political action’’. All of which should lead us to wonder where the Reagans and Kissingers, the William F. Buckleys and the Barbara Amiels, find the nerve to accuse the peace movement of “‘scare tactics’. For almost 40 years the cold warriors have been leading us, with lies and decep- tion, down the road to oblivion. It is frightening indeed to consider the consequences of continuing to follow them.