time was cleared up with a solid, Anglo-Saxon But once this small, though vital, over Polaris is cleared up, then the left and the unilateralist wing of the party can claim a real victory the question of Healey's bombastic fer, threat after last year's conference that the right would mobilise to overturn the unilateralist majority this time round And if the NEC statement had confined itself to the issue of nuclear weapons, the left could have voted for it with both hands.
But of course, it doesn't and one of the main reasons why the parliamentary leadership is not trying to mobilise opinion against the membershin on nucear weanons this time round is because of the rest of the in NEC statement. In the first place, unconditionally commits Labour to NATO and this to the political leadership of NATO Washington. And secondly, it pushes the door wide open for the next Labour of government to spend as much as it likes Britain's conventional order to please Washington and keep the military brass idae of moner, the docu cat still pays lip service to the party's defence speading to the same proporSo the parliamentary leadership's hopes are transparent: they want to detatch those in the party whose sole concern is to remove nuclear weapons from Britain from the political left, which sees nuclear issues as part of a more basic struggle against the threat to the world posed by US militarism under four more years of Reagan. At the same aN. they hope, isolating the anti-left, they want to Washington that Britain under Labour will continue to be a loyal clientimperialist state while getting rid of its own nuclear weapons (which the US never particularly fond Now some people, including some of the authors of the ment itself, will say this is grossly unfair, and it is quite true number those WnO worked the document - such as Eric Richardson, Mary Mike Gapes cannot described as in any sense porters of Reaganism, NATO itself.
And such people will point out, correctly that the statement makes against current US strategic plans and a number of important statements against some the aggressive schemes being cooked up by right here at the moment.
It points out the powerful trend American ruling circles believes the US can fight and win a nuclear war (the stated vipu Weinberger). It points out the ag gressive character both Allied Command Europe's Follow-On-Forces' deep into the Soviet rear and of the US army's current fighting doctrine of AirLand Battle.
It points out that all these things seen by the USSR as military strated " they are to be NATO's part, presumably such by us to. or are our American Evolves the American war does propose from a single tivities of NÅTO, that insists NATO is the only legitimate framework for efforts to change policy. the document there some which Labour would pull out of the American alliance. reassure word in the text about moving Britain towards non-alignment.
behind vague talk about the need to end of that a HefKaldor supevel the that of strikes waroffensive seen as
ock's ment CONTRACTORS ARMED SERVICES COMMITTER MEMBERS PLANS FE URMS THE DEFENCE Socialist Action 28 September 1984 document, Defence and Security for Britain, will be presented to this week's nuclear weapon-free zone then we are told that we will wait for NATO to withdraw all its nuclear battlefield weapons from Europe.