World

Peace initiatives put
NATO's new missiles
‘under hard scrutiny

By RITA HOPPE
Berlin Correspondent
BERLIN — A primary military/politi-

_ al tenet of the United States and its NATO
allies is the policy of first-use of nuclear

_ Weapons. In military terms, this is what

continues to determine NATO’s aggressive

Strategy of nuclear deterrence.

While politically this policy must keep
denying the reality that even a “limited”
nuclear war would be a disaster of catastro-
phic proportions, the readiness to use bat-
tlefield nuclear weapons to “win” a

_ conventional war explains why the U.S. is
_ ow risking a political crisis with West

Germany over its decision to replace the

| present outdated Lance missiles (130 km

|

' Tange) with a new short-range (485 km)

nuclear missile.
Since the Soviet-U.S. INF-treaty bans all

_ ground-launched nuclear missiles with a

_ Tange of 500 to 5,500 kilometers, the new,
_ Improved successor to the Lance is designed
| toneutralize the accord, politically and mil-
_ itarily. Its deployment is intended to prevent

;

existing disarmament initiatives from be-

PLO contact
said historic

The Canadian government’s March 30

_ decision to upgrade its level of contact with

the Palestine Liberation Organization was
called “an historic day for Palestinian-
Canadian relations” by the PLO’s represen-
tative to Canada, Abdullah Abdullah. He
expressed the hope that the contact would
“develop into a very close friendship.”

Similar sentiments came from the Asso-
ciation of Palestinian Arab Canadians
which, while greeting the step announced by
External Affairs Minister Joe Clark, said:
“We feel (he) would have done the cause of
peace a great service if he had gone one step
further and recognized the PLO.”

Ottawa’s position to upgrade its contact
level, while an advance from its former
untenable position, still fails to recognize
the PLO as the legitimate representative of
the Palestinian people, as it fails to support
the right of the Palestinian people to an
independent state.

That point was made in an March 31
media release by the Communist Party of
Canada which, while recognizing the posi-
tive aspects of the move, also called for
recognition of the PLO and the rights of the
Palestinians to statehood.

“The government is slowly but surely
being compelled to recognize the reality of
the PLO ... and adjust its Middle East
policy, which has reached a dead end, to
catch up with all other NATO members

‘who see the PLO as a decisive component of

any resolution of the Middle East crisis,”
the CPC said.

Pointing to “pressures from the Zionist
lobby in Canada and the Israeli govern-
ment”, the CPC cautioned: “The forces
opposing this limited measure have not
given up their aims. The Israeli government
is still seeking sell out artists among the
Palestinians ... and in Canada there are
forces who seek to undermine these first
meagre steps which could lead to a durable
Middle East peace.

“This is all the more reason why the
labour and democratic movements in our
country must throw their weight behind this
process,” the CPC urged.

coming an on-going and logical process,
and to camouflage the fact that elimination
of one category of weapons equals more,
not less, security for both sides.

Not least of all, the new generation Lance
will represent continuing U.S. determina-
tion to use nuclear weapons in the event of
war in Europe. With the ensuing death and
destruction to be visited in the main upon
the populations of both Germanies, it is
little wonder West Germans feel they are
being subjected to risks not shared by their
NATO allies.

This comes at a time of unprecedented
peace initiatives from the Soviet Union and
the Warsaw Pact nations, whose ultimate
aim is clearly stated: to restructure both
Warsaw Pact and NATO armed forces to
the point where surprise attack is no longer
possible. This achievement would necessar-
ily pare military potential down to defensive
purposes only. Why then, does NATO not
share the political desire to achieve this
goal? One obvious reason is that it considers
the possibility of nuclear war an acceptable
risk.

And what of the political will of the
socialist countries in the Warsaw Pact?
Reporting from the German Democratic
Republic, I can say this government is tak-
ing bold new steps in order to encourage the
momentum so far achieved in European
disarmament to continue uninterrupted.
These steps include a new openness and
willingness to discuss more deeply some
issues which were previously over-simplified
or merely glossed over.

Questions such as these are now being
answered: How does the GDR describe the
enemy to its people? Is it becoming increas-
ingly more difficult for the country’s young
people to understand and accept the need
for compulsory military service? Why are
more and more young men using longer-
term military service? Will the GDR’s
recently announced unilateral disarmament
moves to cut 10,000 personnel from its
armed forces include only reserves, or will
career soldiers also be affected?

About the enemy image: Responding to
this question in a recent interview with a
West German newspaper, GDR Defence
Minister Heinz Kessler said: ““We do not say
that other states and other peoples are our
enemy. But from whom must the National
Peoples’ Army protect us? We say the
enemy is one who would attack us, who
would by force cross over our borders in
order to destroy our socialist state and
society, to disrupt our building of the social-
ist system.”

While most young people can accept an
18-month term, many hesitate to sign up for
more. As the country’s living standard
increases, its youth gravitate toward the

- more attractive non-military career offers

which compete for their talents. But for the
moment this is not a problem.

In February, the GDR announced a uni-
lateral reduction of 10,000 troops. About
one-third of those affected will be career
soldiers, a significant portion of whom will
be officers who had expected lifetime mil-
itary service. But perhaps they are consoled
that by leaving they achieve the purpose of
donning uniforms in the first place.

In this age of possible big bang extinc-
tion, the only responsible defence of one’s

country is through effective reduction of'

military potential. The Warsaw Pact coun-
tries have taken concrete steps in this direc-
tion. In so doing, they appeal to all
reasonable forces within NATO not to risk
going back to stage one with the current
drive for missile “compensation” and
“modernization” which threatens to cancel
out all that has so far been achieved.

GORBACHEV ON ELECTION DAY ..
from this and revise your style of work.”

Vote results signal
to speed up reform

By CARL BLOICE

MOSCOW — It’s hard to say who
might have been surprised by the results
of last month’s election. It’even harder to
say at what point it dawned on a large
number of government and party offi-
cials that they might get a big ‘“‘nyet”
from Soviet voters — even some of
those who were running unopposed.

No one lost his or her job because of
the election. Those functionaries who
failed to be elected to the new Congress
of People’s Deputies will still be officials
of local governing councils, the Soviets,
or secretaries of Communist Party
committees. However, there was a mes-
sage for them, April 1, on the front page
of the Communist Party daily news-
paper, Pravda: learn a lesson from this
and revise your style of work.

It is now generally conceded that to
the extent there was one overriding issue
in this spring’s election campaign, it was
the pace of perestroika. But not all dissa-
tisfaction related to implementation of
the major economic and _ political
reforms underway in the country, presi-
dent Mikhail Gorbachev said after the
vote. Rather, much of it was directed
locally.

In many cases, he said, it concerned
issues that don’t require appropriation of
lot of money to solve. As Pravda indi-
cated, much of it involved a style of
work.

The newspaper expressed the view
that is shared by most observers, Soviet
and foreign, that the vote demonstrated,
in the main, support for perestroika,
democracy and glasnost. No one has yet
pointed to a situation where the balloting
indicated a conservative or anti-reform
trend.

The election can be called “a national
referendum in favour of perestroika,”
Pravda stated. However, said the Com-
munist Party daily, the voting provided
“much food for thought, for thinking
things out.”

Then, with a bluntness not usually
characteristic of Pravda editorials, it
asked: ““Why should a substantial back-
ing of a candidate lead in some places to
a loss of votes? Why did a party commit-
tee’s reluctance to see a candidate elected
who enjoyed no sympathy of the party
apparatus provoke powerful popular
support, as in the case of Boris Yeltsin?

Why did some first secretaris of regional®#determined not by the number of parties,

party committees fail to be elected, even
though there were no other candidates

. urges party leaders to “‘learn a lesson

left after the nominations and they
remained single candidates?

The statement about Yeltsin is some-
what of an understatement. ‘“Reluc-
tance” should be replaced with an
all-out, somewhat underhanded drive to
discredit the former Moscow party
leader. Another question being asked
now is, how a person without the popu-
larity to get elected ended up running
solo?

A message of the election, the party
central newspaper said, was: “People will
no longer put up with red tape, indiffer-
ence, inertia on the part of staff, or
power-pressure methods and_ public
opinion manipulation.”

Not every election outcome could be
considered positive. The pace of peres-
troika was not the only issue nor were the

views of the party reflected everywhere.
As the returns from parts of the Baltic
republics indicated, divisive ethnic con-
flict was reflected in the campaign in
some places and openly anti-socialist
views promoted.

Addressing a special meeting of the
heads of media organizations three days
after the vote, Gorbachev said the voting |
indicated the need for stepped-up activity
by the party in the preserit situation. “We
cannot be, we have no right to be naive
day-dreamers,” he said. “Without demo-
cracy and glasnost, there is no peres-
troika. But in the same way, how should
protect it against those who palm
unseemly slogans off on us?”

Gorbachev said the election had
shown the “immense opportunities”
under the Soviet system and socialist
democracy for the expression of “views,
interests and approaches.” He also took
note of the speculation — mostly out-
side the country — that the election
revealed an opposition and calls for a
multi-party system. “Democracy is

.
;
|

but by the part people play in society,” he
said.

Pacific Tribune, April 17, 1989 » 9