Photo: JOHN SMITH (IFL)
even though Labour's leaders are now ery luke warm about the WEU, that key will have to grasp that straw in the when they're tied up with this whole problem of how to reconcile the membersup with a commitment to unilateralism, which will be difficult for a Labour government to get out of.
Such a policy ties in with the heavy emphasis that can be observed recently in the rhetoric of the Labour Party leadership, around the need cooperate with other socialist parties and governments. theme pops us everywhere: at the level bI economic poncy, some kina or buroreflation and Euro-Keynesianism. I'm sure it will pop up on the question of military strategy, some kind of 'Eurostrategy'. The SPD and the French are open to this.
At the German SPD congress following their dismissal from power, they adopted the line of greater independence for Western Europe, rejection of cruise and Pershing, of Airland Battle strategy, and strengthening the European role within NATO. This was coupled to rhetoric about persuading Europe to pull its weight in favour of detente and non-nuclear policies at least to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons. Mary Kaldor of the Alternative Detence Commission puts an almost identical policy in Britain.
Detente All these moves has been received with deep suspicion by the peace movement. Mike Gapes in the END journal argues such policies aren't a very good idea because they would destabilise the world and make more complicated. He claims it's much oculci lo slay within NATO and argue the policy of detente developing the Helsinki process, as he calls it — rather than starting third bloc adventures.
Now that's not the kind of argument 1 would put forward: throwing out the baby with the bath water. The argument is not against destabilisation. As socialists and unilateralists we must be prepared to destabilise the status quo. That's what we are in business for.
The problem is that the 'Eurodefence' argument is put within the came framework as NATO - that of a military alliance against the Soviet anti-communist orientation, particular capitalist society. sian threat, of the need ourselves against the Reds both under the beds and beyond the Iron Curtain, is the ideological bedrock of all this.
It is impossible to tackle this whole issue of unilateralism, of nuclear disarmament and NATO, unless face this question of the so-called Russian threat. You cannot develop a coherent strategy unless you have a convincing answer level of arms technology and military alliancęs in the diplomatic sense — bu on the level of substance, namely who do wel defend ourselves against and with whom? Who are our enemies and who are our allies?
This means taking up the role of the Americans, taking up the role of the West Europeans, and taking up the role of the Soviet Union in its real political substance - ana not lust in terms ol abstract schemes of opting out of the arms race. Unless we do this, we will never around the hampered us in the last tion.
embedded in a socialist policy; not just a unilateralist policy embedded in a socialist foreign policy, but one embedded in a socialist economic strategy — because NATO, the Western alliance, the free world, al c complex social-economic political-military phenomena. We can't break with one aspect without being forced to look at other aspects as well.
This is the tundamental problem to with Labour's defence policy and the Labour left hasn't come up with a soluThis tion yet. For instance, put a position that a Labour government which oniv took a small ster towards rejecting LUTe drive against the Soviet Union, would precisely mean massive destabilisation.
Reaction callllul socialist British government - be it on the level of economic policy, be it on the level of foreign policy, be it on the level of strategic military policy without taking into account the likely reaction from the United States and not or only from the US but also of course French or the West Germans going to government committed to a How do we avoid the big black hole, left open in Blackpool? We have to face it and convince the electorate in order to gain a majority for radical socialist around this is. to actually put forward, in an offensive sense, the view that the only credible security policy, the only credible foreign policy, ble economic policy for a socialist Bri tain is one which allignes itself not with West Germany under Kohl, but adopis a comes from understanding the Soviet Union and the Eastern bioc. Unless we grasp that nettle we will never be able to give convincingeanswers to these kinds This is an edited version of a paper prepared for a Labour CND dayschool on Saturday 1984.
military The bogey of a Rusto defend — not simply on the KORTH VESTERN AREN PRIDE UF GOLBORNE BRANCH
----- pull-quotes -----
We need not just a unilateralist policy, but a unilateralist policy which