argument that NATO could imrove apability on the Central Front' (page 2). In other words, the NEC is offerog to beef up the conventional pressure exchange for removing nukes from be UK.
Somehow, somebody managed to we themelline signine the statement: of... reductions in nuclear arsenals and defensive deterrence epends on whether they can initiate a political process of reducing tensions between the blocs.' This is absolutely right. The removal of nuclear weapons resistance to this or that new dangerous conventional military system does not n itself have any lasting significance in pulling the back elocaust. Such positive steps must be art of a political struggle to defeat the polities behind the arms build-up.
Awful truth And it is this political drive, deeply rooted in the social system of Britain nd the US, that the NEC does not vant to confront. It is frightened to tell he awful truth about this: that the hreat to our security comes Washington in the hands of and from a British establishment comnitted to appeasing Washington long the line; that these people are inolved in an aggressive drive to impose errible suffering on the Third World, a push the USSR towards a blow-out and to combat 'the enemy within' • British labour movement: and that e labour movement's struggle against Conventona swuncance policy successful tire policy of NATO's leadership.
out fear, is the guarantee gress, hegemony in Western Europe.
from a all — ie, that nuclear weapons must form part of an overall political struggle against the en- policy' Instead of this, the NEC takes us, into an Alice in Wonderland world where Washington of our peace security, where NATO can become our The great instrument for peace and prowhere Washington can come to see the wisdom of giving up its most important international power base — its battle Just as CND long ago recognised withdrawal from NATO, the Labour must buttress its unilateralist commitment with an policy that breaks with the NATO commitment. This will be a long battle, and it may begin with very small, largely negative victories such as the SOGAT idea 'we go along with NATO except where it conflicts with Labour Party What we cannot accept is a sordid, self-defeating full support for NATO and for a con. ventional arms build-up in exchange for the removal of nukes from Britain.
NEC statement's logic is to turn Britain from being Reagan's nuclear battleship into his supply and com. munications base. This is not a socialist policy that the left can support. The over defence inside the party against the document by victory for the right.
vote for tory for the right.
My keep silent.
we offer unlateral nuclear disarmament).
tant to jeopardise at this stage:
then after conference, open best of intentions, understanding is at fault.
CND, personal capacity If the that the sections on warm and at times inconsistent.
reduction negotiations' very fice'.
The bases go and all US soldiers should leave.
regularised.
facilities would be meaningless.
argued Similarly, Delegates to conference will be confronted with a crisis. A vote ment ference would be presented as a rejection of the commitment to get rid of nuclear weapons, which is contained in it. This would be a the the document means that the Labour Party will NAHU be committed to a defence policy to increase military spending on conventional weapons and to a position of uncritical enthusiasm for NATO, which is, again, a vicargument is that there is ment. There is everything to lose if we 'friendly Too often the left has been told to keep quiet so that 'we can at least hold onto the gains we have made • In unis case me bargalning chip is that we have won the party to We are told that this is too impor'We that should accept what we can get and up the debate again. This argument is being put by comrades who have the very but their needs.
defence document goes through without opposition, the very itiatives cause we support, namely unilateral nuclear disarmament will be the next in line for 're-definition'. In fact close examination of the document shows getting rid of nuclear weapons and bases are lukeFirstly there was a scramble to get the wording right on the commitment to get rid of Polaris. In the drafting committee, the phrase 'Labour will include Polaris in the nuclear arms nearly got into the document instead of the words 'to decommission Polaris from service immediately on assuming ofcommitment to get rid of nuclear bases is nowhere spelt out in clear terms: lhere are indications thal the commitment is seen to include on- there where nuclear weapons are presently sited. This will For include only those with Poseidon and Trident missiles and F1-11 airfields. We demanded that all US bases must strategies, Yet the document assumes that the US occupying army is here to stay mand, presence other US forces in Britain will be A British veto over the use of US The weapons commitment to refuse Cruise and Trident is in the statement, but nowhere ding the section on removing battlefield nuclear weapons is weak and contradictory. First we are told that we should work for a European There is no time scale for this to take place but 'in the event of NATO failing to do this the British governwill remove all battlefield nuclear weapons from the British army and the RAF units in Germany' We have to oppose the weakness of commitment to getting rid of nuclear weapons and base. support for continued membership of But we must also oppose the way in which Labour's longstanding commitment to reduce military spending has also been thrown out.
In the document, there are long passages devoted to explaining how the front line in Germany will be strengthened with new conventional this will be understood bi the USSR to be peaceful gesture' Throughout the document the USSR is assumed to be the enemy (despite an attempt at balance in the foreword, written in by Tony Benn).
The draft composite resolution, put forward by all of the disarmament groups in the Labour Party. insists the to reduce derence spenals Is sull Labour darl policy and that this must be a priority within the lifetime of the next Labour government. Without this, there will not be alternative jobs created for defnece and other and no further money avaialble for social Delegates are therefore urged to support this composite and to oppose the defence document.
The policy we should support involves Britain taking independent indisarmament And why can't it? And while we are not remove British forces from Europe and really begin a new order in European affairs?
This is the real failure of the state. ment. It seeks to retain all of the existing trappings of the British military machine. Nuclear weapons are replaced by conventional weapons which are just as lethal as some battlefield nuclear weapons. The commitment to NATO and to nationalism surpasses the Tories. The Tories are criticised for introducing cuts in the NATO defensive conven tional forces in order to pay for TriTo appear radical, the document states that the Labour Party will press for NATO to become non-nuclear but is again no timescale therefore this demand is meaningless.
nuclear alliance dominated by a nuclear power and committed to fighting with nuclear to make such a change is well nigh impossible and therefore the Labour Party, in raising this as a de being deceptive dishonest to its supporters. • Reject the document and demand a socialist foreign policy • For the removal of all nuclear • For withdrawal from NATO • For reductions in defence spen • For peaceful strategies towards the USSR and for the withdrawal of all foreign troops and bases from this country and from Europe.
Socialist Action 28 September 1984 publicly locally or nationally.
----- pull-quotes -----
1097HJERBLOCK You Men Realize That We're in « Struggle to Preserve Our Entire Stundard of Spending'