eee lL SC

World

No easy p

eace dividend even in Sweden

By ROB PRINCE

OREBRO, Swe-
den — The weekend
of elections in the
GDR (March 18)

_ found me here meet-
ing with activists
from the Swedish
Peace Committee
(SPC). There was
not much discussion
of the overall Euro-
pean situation and
participants seemed
somewhat insulated from the dramatic
changes underway in the rest of Europe.

On the other hand, they were generally
between 18 and 25, their age belying the fact
that they are peace movement veterans
quite skilled in organizing. Just last summer
they spearheaded a peace festival in Mur-
mansk, USSR, which was a major regional
event underlying different security and
environmental issues common to Nordic
countries.

Perhaps more important is that the SPC
is coming out of a long period when it was
little more than an arm of the Swedish
Communist Party in the peace movement
and its congresses were concerned more
with left sectarian questions than building
peace campaigns.

I could not help asking myself questions
concerning its future — questions which
apply to many other peace movements in
similar conditions. Can the SPC openly
look back with a critical eye on its past?
Does it have an analysis of the developing
situation in Europe and the world and the
new possibilities of peace work within the
emerging political framework?

Can it break with dogmatic traditions,
transform itself into a more open, hetero-
geneous peace movement? Is the SWP mov-
ing in the direction of new thinking, or

PRINCE

Military hikes on gov't agenda

remaining within the confines of more tradi-
tional models of bloc thinking? Can it
expand its social base, build more trust and
better cooperation with other peace groups
of which there are a number of key ones in
Sweden? Several participants asked these
and other probing questions.

One encouraging sign was the continued
commitment to ongoing practical and
active peace campaigns, such as the current
and timely SPC campaign to cut Swedish
military spending by 10 per cent at a time
when plans are being advanced by the mil-
itary to significantly increase the arms
budget.

Sweden’s proposed increase in military
spending, and its plans to develop a new
JAS jet fighter aircraft, run counter to new
possibilities to deepen the European peace
process, and seem to suggest that even in
neutral Sweden, deterrence has a lease on
security policy. The Swedish Peace and
Arbitration Society (SPAS) has been
researching patters of Swedish military
spending and actively campaigning against
JAS development. Earlier, SPAS exposed
the illegal sales by the arms manufacturer,
Bofors, to India.

One would think that in the improved
political atmosphere, neutral countries such
as Sweden (and Finland) would benefit
from decreased arms spending rather than
increasing military budgets. And the logic

would also extend into the economic
sphere.

Small countries with limited resources

— even if they have done well economically —

until now — are facing increasingly com-
plicated new European economic realities.

Their ability to be both prudent (in terms of
wasting resources) and farsighted in their
economic plans will considerably impact
their potential of successfully meeting the
coming economic challenges where the
ground rules for European economic co-
operation, east and west, are fast changing.

Yet despite these compelling arguments,
the Swedish government is on the verge of a
major increase in military spending which
could boost the country’s arms budget as
much as 15 per cent annually by the year
2000. While the actual decision will not be
taken by parliament until the end of 1990,
the increase is backed by the main political
parties and major government circles.

Certainly, a campaign to cut arms spend-
ing here will not be easily achieved. Despite
the justice of their cause, those advocating
cutting military spending are somewhat iso-
lated within the Swedish body-politic where
a general consensus within parliament exists
for increased military spending.

Challenging the government’s security
policy, which is mostly in the hands of mil-
itary experts and is something of a sacred
cow, will be no easy matter either. Further-
more, the military has tried to push its pro-
gram through parliament quickly and
quietly, anxious to avoid an open and far-
reaching public debate. In this, they’ve had
some success to date.

The impression emerges that besides a
campaign to cut military spending, other
steps are needed in addition to social acti-
vism, Given the changes in Europe, an
entirely new public discussion on security
would be useful not only to draw attention
to increased spending on weapons, but to
look at the deeper questions about security.

Gudrun Schyman, member of the Swed-
ish parliament, and vice-chair of the Left
Party/Communist parliamentary group, is
opposed to increasing military spending
without a far-reaching public discussion
which she thinks makes more sense to have
after the situation in Europe stabilizes. “It’s
useless to have a security declaration now in
the midst of a changing international situa-
tion,” she argues. “It would be more mean-
ingful to do so in the late 1990s when things
are clarified. Without such a broad discus-
sion, Schyman says, increasing arms spend-
ing has no basis.”

Sharing her view for such an overall for-
eign policy review is long-time peace activist
Urban Karlsson. “We're in a new situation.
The concept of ‘two camps’ is outdated. We
need a new vision of security needs in new
times . . .. It’s a challenge to people to think
another way.”

Certainly there is no dearth of issues
around security issues challenging Sweden
and the region. A naval arms race in the
North Atlantic has intensified calls for a
Nordic Nuclear Weapons’ Free Zone which
enjoys wide support. These have been
rejected by the U.S. and Britain.

The Soviet decision to transfer some of its
nuclear testing programs to islands off the
Kola Peninsula in the generally fragile arctic
environment nearer to the Nordic countries
has resulted in renewed calls for a U.S.-
Soviet ban on nuclear tests. A reunified
Germany whose security status is NATO-
based could result in an entirely new secur-
ity configuration for the Baltic Sea.

All these issues tie into nagging and
aggravating environmental concerns as
well.

Rob Prince is a former staff member of the
Helsinki-based World Peace Council where
he represented the United States Peace
Committee for four years. He is presently
travelling and writing from Europe.

Soviet debate grows tense as new reforms loom

Special to the Tribune

MOSCOW — One of the. chief eco-
nomic advisors to Soviet President Gorba-
chevy said that the country is experiencing ‘ta
sort of heart attack before the decisive cho-
ices:

The choice he was talking about should
come this month when Gorbachev unveils

the “radical economic reform” he pledged

‘at the time of his election last March. In the

meantime, the argument over what course
to take has taken on the appearance of a
sharp political conflict.

The presidential aide, economist Nikolai
Petrakov, raised the temperature of the
debate quite a few notches when he lashed
out at “the populist line” being taken by
“our stagnation-period trade unions which,
having suffered serious defeats at the time of
last summer’s mine strikes, now want to
gain political capital through socio-econ-
omic demagoguery” and whose voice has
become “thunderous.” :

Petrakov’s comment to the newspaper
Rabochnaya Tribuna came only a few days

-after the country’s trade unions issued an
-appeal to the government to “avoid haste”

in carrying out the process of radical
reform. On April 18, the All-Union Central
Council of Trade Unions (AUCCTU)
warned that ill-advised economic. moves
could plunge the country into “the abyss”
of social conflict.

The union body said radical reform
should be undertaken only on the basis ofa
“national consensus.”

The unions’ admonition came at a meet-

ing of the AUCCTU which abruptly

changed its top leadership and served notice
it would now act independently and force-

fully to defend the interests of the country’s
workers during the process of reform.

Petrakov’s attack on the unions was con-
tained in an interview ostensively rejecting
the widespread view in “radical” intellectual
circles that the country needs the “shock
therapy” of the Polish option in economic
reform. However, the sharpest barbs were
directed at those “populists” he said are
undermining the reform process.

There is some confusion as to which
populists Petrakov has in mind for he
appeared to lump together “radicals” who

Bloice

FROM
MOSCOW

scored some victories in recent elections
(many of whom are quite Poland-minded in
economic outlook) and the trade union
leadership —.two different political kettles
of fish.

The end of April saw aconcerted attempt
to disassociate the Gorbachev government
from the “Polish option”. This should have
a positive effect considering the atmosphere
here in the capital where wild rumours
abound that the price of meat is about to
double and millions of unemployed will
appear soon.

As with most Moscow rumours, these
current Ones are not spun entirely out of
whole cloth. Every actor on the stage has a

line and what some highly-placed personali-
ties have said to the local and international
media has fueled some of the sensational
speculation.

The thrust of Petrakov’s was that what
can be accomplished, and how fast, is
affected by the political situation to which
the “populists” are clearly not making a
constructive contribution.

“The political situation in Poland differs
considerably from ours,” Petrakov said.
“Poles struggled to bring Solidarnosc to
power. In fact, they have nobody to blame
now. They have in their economy exactly
what they wanted. The program of the
Mazowiecki government, even if it is bitter
medicine, is being carried out on the basis of
this consensus.”

Whether or not voters in Poland opted

for the horrendous situation developing
there now, what consensus there is here is
unclear. Petrakov said only one-third of the
Soviet people support the proposed “market
orientation.” Moreover, there is considera-
ble confusion over just what the “market” is
to be: : ee -
“The essence of the acceleration of eco-
nomic reform, and this is now under discus-
sion in detail in the Presidential Council and
the government is, in general, a transfer toa
system of a regulated market,” the AUC-
CTU’s new chair, Gennady Yanayev, 52,
told the trade union council. “Trade unions
should realize that along with increasing of
efficiency of production, strengthening
incentives for labour enterprises and initia-
tive in the society, social problems will be
sharpened seriously.

“We are for implementation of regulated
market relations only if a system of social

amortizers in the form of legal economic
and social guarantees is built into the econ-
omy,” he explained.

On April 23, presidential spokesperson
Arkadi Maslennikov flatly rejected specula-
tion that Gorbachev “intends to take a leap
into the unknown by resorting to shock
therapy.” Maslennikov said the remainder
of this year will be devoted to establishing
the existing consumer market and the
reforms will begin in 1991.

The stabilization will involve withdraw-
ing excessive money by issuing stock shares,
selling some facilities and issuing bonds
with a fairly high interest rate. Controls will
be placed on the growth of individual
incomes, he said.

That the reforms threaten negative con-
sequences for some portion of the popula-
tion goes without question. The president
has said as much. The repeated assertion
that steps will be taken to protect the livli-
hood of “low income” groups could not be
generally reassuring as it refers primarily to
seniors, students and families with many
children.

Assuming the sacrifices will not fall on
intellectuals or the increasingly wealthy
cooperative operators, workers would seem
to have cause for concern. Maslennikov
appeared to change the form of reference.
saying built-in mechanisms would guaran-
tee social protection of “low and medium™
income sections of the population.

The reforms will not be launched ignor-
ing their social consequences, he added. “A
survival of the fittest approach is unaccep-
table to us.”

Carl Bloice is Moscow correspondent for
the U.S. People’s Daily World.

Pacific Tribune. May 7, 1990 « 9