THE MAIN ISSUE facing this week's annual conference of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is what attitude it takes to non-nuclear defence. This debate, bubbling up in peace movement circles for a year or more, has surfaced still more clearly with the publication of Labour's defence policy statement at the beginning of the summer.
Many unilateralists in the party, and in the peace movement, have been deeply confused by this document. On paper it seems to uphold Labour's unilateralist policies but, simulataneously, in fact it pledges Labour to maintaining or increasing conventional arms spending and commits the party more firmly than ever to NATO membership.
These apparent contradictions led Tony Benn, in a recent interview for Socialist Action, to describe the document as 'a curate's egg': good in some parts, bad in others. Tony Benn was wrong.
The 'contradictions' of the document disappear when it is seen in its true light — as part of the plans of the West European powers and the United States for revamping and strengthening GUNTER MINNERUP looks at the recent revival of the West Enropean Union and how it will contribute to modernising NATO. JOY HURCOMBE looks at the key issues facing this year's CND THE WEST EUROPEAN Union (WEU was set up in 1954-55, from the Treaty of Brussels. Its membership is the West European NATO countries - excluding the less reliable ones, namely Turkey and Norway.
Originally it pretended to be a sabstitute for the West European Defence Community which floundered on assembly veto in the early 1950s. It was designed to promote increasingly greater integration of military and defence policies of the West NATO member countries, and at the same time to allay the French fear that had led to the rejection of the WEDC.
Initially the WEU, played an imporcant role. For instance, the referendum #hich returned the Saarland to West Germany auspices of the WEU. But very soon, was organised with the important political and technological decisions being made by NATO, the WEU fell into disuse.
It simply maintained an office and a small staff, and gave the occasional junket parlamehtallails member governments. But in terms of serious political relevance it was rather ignored until fairly recently, was revived on the initiative of the French and Germans. This met with intitial resistance from the British - who only jumped onto the band wagon when the Americans gave them the all Sear The WEU was formally relaunched Socialist Action ficial agenda given for the Fficial agenda given for disation between member countries.
pense they sutter sional counter attacks, the French, in that field.
thing that's been Greece, East. That remains to be seen.
(WEDC), WEU ministers the French yearly, just before pro-Atlanticist participants the • would under the strategic, without Americans -of the excludes the United States.
when it It's very Wichit.
23 November 1984 at the end of October, and a manifesto ofWEU meetings is issues such as arms standargreater coordination of arms technology, arms development programmes, and procurement.
These are issues the West Euro- serous peans have bleated about for a long long time - citing the horrendous exas a result of the American arms-technology monopoly and the fragmented nature of the occaparticularly by Disarmament policies are another thrown in lo the WEU. That may be taken simply as a sop to the peace movement, but I think what's really hidden behind that is the potential development of an alternative Have West European line on detente with the One of the things decided is that the should meet halfNATO meetings.
That can mean one of two things: either some sort of faction to speak with a joint European voice in occasionally confronting the Americans, or exactly the opposite - namely that the most meeting will sort out all the problems the Americans would otherwise have to deal with before the NATO meeting.
There are other interesting aspects to the WEU revival. For instance the October meeting emphasised the role time play suale technology, and in discussing initiatives outside Europe — a rapid deployment force and intervention capability in the third world. And all this was discussed participation of the CUSL the WEU is the only organisation mandated by its own treaty to deal with defence matters which The question is what possibilities are apparent in these developments?
important that peace movement keeps a close eye on all this.
On the other hand, I think there is a great deal of exaggeration about the Euro-bomb as things stand at the moThe role of the WEU is a question PROTEST ANT of finding a balance between the increasing confrontation, competition and disharmony between the United States and Europe — and still keeping one's feet on the ground, making it absolutely clear what is the real relationship of forces.
American hegemony is a very, very force. A fully-fledged pean force completely independent and equidistant from the Soviet Union and the United States, with its own integrated nuclear conventional force, at the moment is simply not on. There's plenty of countervailing factors that militate against this — not least the enormous expense.
If Western Europe was to throw out the Americans and set up its own credible nuclear deterrent and the conventional forces that go along with it, and own technology at the same level as the Americans — that would ruin the West European economy.
'Free world' The Americans used to say they were financing the West welfare state by agreeing to pay for the bulk of the defence expenditure, letting the Europeans off the hook relatively low level of defence commitment. Of course that would end with a break up of the Atlantic alliance. At the economic crisIs, Europe would be forced severely adapt its economic structures.
Not only would there be the financial cost, but also an enormous political of detaching from the United States. America's political reputation been severely erroded developments since the 1960s, but this has to be balanced by the continued strength importance of ideological commitment to "the free So there are many reasons to rule out dramatic developments towards a uncoupling of Western Europe from the United States. The immediate result is something which is perhaps best described by what Genscher now the president of the council of ministers of the WEU and the West German minister of foreign affairs — has said: "This union for our common defence must be revived to focus an increased European awareness of common security interests and European contributions within framework.
Europe should increasingly speak with one voice within the alliance. should identify its common security interests. On the matter Euro- defence, too, Europe ranks and pool its resources. It must emerge from its role as a lodger in the shelter of American strength, and do more to guarantee its through its own efforts.' This fairly well describes the actual agenda: a kind of two-pillar NATO, a NATO which reflects more adequately in its decision-making structure and internal arrangement the changes in the relationship of forces between the two parts of NATO, since the alliance was set up in the late pressure of the peace movement and the political pressures of the more rampant Europe, such a 'rebalancing' might well include a partial substitution IN C American role developments like the French force de with a frappe, by a military build up. because we are in the realm of speculaWest tion. We can only describe tendencies and extrapolate them on the basis of what does leak into the public domain. Hamon, who was the minister of information In the before Mitterrand, reveals the development of French security policy, with the WEU, and speculates about certain European divisions of labour in the military field force de frappe. He has actually written a book about it. He claims the "sanctuary, which was originally France is now being liberated from its enclaved status and taken into the whole of Western Europe, creating a nuclear umbrella over Italy, West Germany, etc.
European states high technology, arises in his view.
common should COsi with lie own security years to come.
4US.
wilh wilal lit Western of the aspects of the Europe by general the Labour difficult to project all this commitment article by Leo nock, French governmen like the French other words He assigns other roles to other - I01 example he favours specialisation in West German conventional forces army-land forces So a natural 'division of labour' almost There is a tendency, a dialectic, between cooperation with the Americans and remaining within the NATO context, and at the same time of conflict Americans. is really a gradual redefinition of the relationships within the Alliance which could lead to all sorts of developments in the That leads to an important political point for us here. How does the Labour Party defence policy document fit in with these developments?
Contradiction The defence document argues for greater European independence but no third bloc. By and large this is in tune SPD are saying, reconcilable with what the French are saying because the French emphasise they don't want to break with NATO Labour's defence document fits in well with certain statements of the other European socialist parties - although leadership is very luke warm about the WEU There is of course an important pro blem with this Labour Party policy, namely the contradiction between the commitment to unilateralism and the continued membership. Being realists, Neil KinDenis Healey, and Roy alal tersley have to consider this possibility: what happens if Labour does win the next election? What do they do then?
Initially CND posed the issue in terms of betrayal: will they betray us or will they remain true to party policy? That is not the problem. Strengthening the West European role opens a road whereby a Labour government could without betraying unilateralism, still re NATO context. The conventional military and navy role could be left to Britain and the question of the nuclear role left open.
I think there is a distinct possibility,