the autumn which will lead to the signing of a treaty that scraps all intermediate-range nuclear weaponbetween Soviet and US foreign secretaries, does it represent? CAROL TURNER reports.
THE arms-elimination treaty that the USA Soviet Union look set to sign would be the first of its type. It would remove TONI Europe all nuclear missiles Will of between 3400 miles.
That means the USA would remove 332 Pershing groundaunched missiles silualca In Drilal, West Germany, ( Italy deployment in the Netherlands. That means scrapping Soviet 'S-20 targetted Europe and more pointing at Japan China. As British media was quick to claim (after years of a dirty propaganda war against the women's peace camp), it would include the cruise missiles sited at Greenham Common.
The prospect of such a treaty has been piously hailed as 'an historic first by the Western media. would also be the first arms treaty of type igned bi Ronald Reagan luring the whole of hi presidency - just what the doctor ordered to shore up the Us premier's flaggin olitical fortunes, and n doubt a not-insignificant fact determining the timing of the announcement of the treaty.
wonemeless. ment which led to a reducWhatever Reagan's inten- only welcomed tions, it is a step towards eroding the cold war AFTER MONTHS of speculation, the United States and the Soviet Union look set to hold a summit in sin Europe. The news was announced on Friday 18 September, at the end of three days of negotiations Eduard Shevardnadze and George Schultz. But what exactly America and sapported by climate created Western • curope since tne end of the Second World War. undermine the defence of the Soviet Union. It : begins to break down the 40-year old myth that the Soviet Union is armed to the teeth and poised to invade the Cracito mot the West. cracies' of the Removing some nuclear weapons trom Europe would also provide a massive boost lo use dulnuclear movement.
While Reagan has been quick to claim the credit, leaders in West Europe have been less enthusiastic. Margaret Thatcher reattirmed, 'I will never give up Britain's independent nuclear deterrent...
an interview with the West German Der Spiegel magazine, she explained: must see defence as a whole, and I have already made clear that, in my opinion, should not disarm further in nuclear arms.' The British media too have conventional eme conventional balance of weapons. They have also returned to their favourite: CuTe warnings about the "dangers of Monday Septemher's editorial in the in dependent played this Lune Under the heading 'Avoiding, utopianism over arms', the leader article explained: This paper has argued that the double zero option is inherently flawed because it involves Ine emmanon or an en tire category of weapons and so He over arall the ladder escalation upon which NATO's doctrine of flexible response "The United States, concludes the editorial, 'will do such deals with the Soviet Union as it believes to be in its best interests. The extent to which such Europe's interests will be largely coincidental. This realisation should now stimulate a reappraisal of Europe's out-dated distorting dependence on the United States.
War Pursuing its European 'third force position, the concludes: "The more the United States and Russia prepare to discuss the reduction of their strategic missiles, the more relevant the nuclear deterrents of Huro. pean security? The paper expressed fear over the 'decoupling' of the United States Western Europe.
This is a minority view among the British ruling class, and the leader writer exagerates the differentia between the interests of the USA and of Europe to drive the newspaper's line home But the point made is a real one. Proposals for any nuclear disarmament the United States in Europe additional pressures by the Wes bourgeoisies for a build-up Cavenda which they will have to pay for in Reagan hasn language has decided Europe must pay more of its share of the arms race. 1 nIs Is ot the • con troversy between the : US and NATO allies over the Gorbachev proposals.
But the US not merely is quite happy to off-load some of the costs of the military build-up onto its allies oul la much bigger fish to fry. Firstly arms deal to recover some of his Concle credibility, Secondly, a key aspect of the discussions with the Soviet leadership was over what euphemistically referred to as 'regiona problems' - which is US South Africa Gulf. The US has undoubtedly demanded more compliant attitude on towards Nicaragua, for example, in return for the arms deal. perfectly prepared to sell out quite a few revolutions for an arms deal The agreement reflects both the power and the only partial success of the movemen 1999. she mess it . Its power is that it has forced a bit of a climbdown by the US - and a bigger European allies. Its limitation is that the movement was not powerful enough to stop the missiles totally the people of South Africa may have to pay the price for that.
The same power that was generated by the anti-missiles movement has to be directed against of whatever SUCTIC 'agreements' have been arrived at between Reagan and Gorbachev This issue will also face Labour Party conference. The emphasis of the parts leadership on the NATC commitment and on conventional arms spending is likely to be part ot a cal for big conventional wcabull. build-up Europe.
----- pull-quotes -----
Belgium, as well as halting their