What was the meaning of the 'zero option' offer by the United States?
There would seem to be two motives behind it. First, it's a negotiating ploy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, and it's a public relations ploy. Zero option relates only to land-based termediate range missiles. plemented it would give the West an enormous advantage in intermediate missiles since none of theirs are land-based and all the Soviet Union's are.
The US used to have land based missiles, but they were unsuitable because they were in fixed places, and therefore in the '60s and '70s they moved their intermediate missiles from the land to the sea first Polaris and then Poseiden.
NATO's intermediate force is extremely strong warheads from the US Poseiden fleet. In addition there are other termediate delivery systems, American aircraft in Britain and aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean as well as the submarine launched missiles of France and Britain. Now indeed France has installed some of its own land-based missiles.
So if the zero option went through it would get rid of all USSR termediate missiles but retain the intermediate weapons of the USA and NATO. Whether or not the seriously expected the Soviet Union to accept this offer is another matter ialist Challenge 18 February 1983 page 6 FRED HALLIDAY, a member of the editorial board of New Left Review, is well known as a writer on the Middle East, Africa and Western Asia. He contributed to the symposium Exterminism and Cold War, and is the author of a soon to be published book, The Making of the New Cold War. Phil Hearse spoke to him about current problems in the fight for disarmament.
but the strategy which NATO has followed since the middle 1970s is to establish a new and clear superiority in intermediate warheads.
Politically the purpose of it was to de-mobilise Western public opinion and give the governments of NATO an argument to say that the United States was serious about negoitation; and to maintain this fiction in the in- whole public discourse in the West If im- that you're only talking about land-based missiles.
What are the objectives of the USA and the USSR in the Geneva talks?
The first US objective is clearly to range demobilise the peace movement and give arguments to allied governments.
And also might demobilise the peace movement in the United States which has become a major factor. The people who proposed in- the Geneva talks in the US governon ment adhere to the "tableau (still life) theory of talks words thai you have people sitting there but, they don't anything.
Wienberger is one who adheres to this theory, as is Richard Pearle his chief advisor in- saboteurs of the SALT Il agreement.
But there were others in the US administration who believed they could USA through these talks force onto the USSR an agreement favourable to it, but which the Soviet Union would have to accept because of its current economic and military weakness.
Nobody -In American side has any doubt that the Soviet Union is the weaker power -it's not equal to the United States in military strength, less so in economic strength - after all the GNP is about 40 percent that. Per capita income in the USSR is only 5000 dollars a year Ireland. The total GNP of the Warsaw Pact countries is about a quarter of that of the United States and its major capitalist allies.
an inferior position and facing serious problems, the possibility of forcing an unequal set of agreements Union. So there is a division -between doves and hawks but beteen two different typ remember what the US intended with the SALT I talks from '69-272 - that you use the negotiations to buy time to build up new weapons systems, and you use the talks to consolidate an existing superiority. ment gave deliverable warheads and "lethality' of warheads.
agreement, for example Nitze proty.
tive, part the post-capitalist finally in the Soviet Union itself.
US administration oniy want ting rid Ukraine, the USSR.
The to increase their expenditure. said aircraft-delivered vivant' in other do or say missiles as well.
of the main whether the not to mention negotiation the Sense sense to stay in NATO.
about that of Spain or Southern wasn't going tion.
So because the Soviet Union is in nuclear they believe that there is between on the Soviet way, of hawks.
1 either case it is important t The quasi-sovereign vice chiefs.
The SALT I agreeUS superiority in - the accuracy and explosive power Even those US which are part negotiators who do want to reach an bably does want an agreement, it's Wal • only to institutionalise US superioriThere is a third American objecof the overall cold war, which is that they think they can force world onto the defensive, not just momentarily but also strategically - that there is what they call a 'window of strategic opportunity' for rolling back Soviet influence in the 1980's, first in the third world then in Eastern Europe and And there are indeed people in the - it sounds like a leftist fantasy but its true - who not to restore capitalism in Cuba, Vietnam and so forth but actually want to push for some sort of break up of the Soviet Union itself, reducing it to its Russian redoubt, getBaltic states, the the Muslim states. People who believe this perspective think the arms limitation talks can be used to push the USSR onto the strategic defensive and so precipitate a crisis in Soviet objectives inthe Geneva talks in a sense parallel those of the United States. They know that the US has a big technological lead and the economic costs of trying to match the Americans would be enormous. Therefore the USSR would like to go for a set of agreements which would lessen the military pressure on them, and lessen the pressure on them The USSR has proposed not the "zero option' but 'absolute zero' not just land-based missiles, not just sea based missiles, but those plus as well.
They have also proposed a nuclear free zone from the mid-Atlantic to the Urals, which would of course encompass American submarine launched The last CND conference debated demand for withdrawal from NATO should be prioritised. Leading CND theorists like Mary Kaldor and Dan Smith, politicians like Tony Benn, want Britain to stay in NATO. Is this politically or logically a sensible perspective?
It's technically possible to stay in NATO without nuclear weapons but it doesn't make military or political If the point of unilateral nuclear disarmament is not to be involved in the use of nuclear weapons nor to be a target, then it makes no Even if the United States said it deploy nuclear weapons at its bases in Britain, they would in practice defy such a regulaThey did so in Japan, using Japan for sea and air transport of weapons when this was specifically banned in an agreement countries, and they've done so in the case of Norwhere they certainly brought some forms of nuclear weapons into Norwegian territorial waters.
Americans after all have power over their bases in Britain, and they could rely on the co-operation of the British serThere are two other factors. Even if you don't have nuclear weapons on your territory, if you have radar stations, signals stations and so forth of a nuclear attack system, there is no doubt that these will be will be a Soviet target in time of The Soviet Union will certainly bombard all NATO countries nuclear weapons in wartime - if only because, as one Soviet military expert put it to me it only takes six minutes for a Pershing missile to get to the Soviet Union and in that time we can't tell where it came from, we'll just flatten the lot of you.' So from the military side it is folly to imagine you can carry out unilateral nuclear disarmament without leaving NATO.
From the political side, if the obiective of unilateral nuclear disarmament is to start to change the world political situation by setting a lead -and there can be no other rationale — then to remain in fraudulent. The members of NATO like Norway and Canada have no effective independent voice in the policies of that alliance. The French outside NATO. but in reality are a very active part of NATO, more effective for their pretence of being outside.
There are those who say that to witharaw NATO destabilise the 'balance' between the two sides - this is the position of the Italian Communist Party. This is a complete myth. There is no "balance', NATO side superiority. By the logic "balance' argument, ought to leave NATO as the alliance recruits more members like Spain.
Let's go on to the demand for a nuclear free zone 'from Poland to Portugal'. What would be the objective effect of the implementation of this demand? Does it not make more sense to link unilateralism with the demand for Britain to leave NATO, than to concentrate on what could be interpreted as slogan?
The objective effect would be very different on the two sides. As far as we know, there are no Soviet nuclear ss-20ns in asen une e, Traine, SS-20 sites Bvelorussia or the Urals, as are the sS-4s and SS-5s. NATO believes that there are no Soviet nuclear weapons ot anv kine in eastern murone. course, in the event of war they could be rapidly transported there. Europe on the other hand is stuffed with nuclear weapons, on land and in the territorial waters.
The European nuclear free zone slogan doesn't seem to me to contradict the demand NATO. I cannot see how you could mplement the nuclear-free slogan while Britain remains part of NATO. You can't have the nuclear free zones as part of a nuclear alliance — it doesn't make sense.
The other point is that you are most unlikely to get a nuclear free zone through a multi-lateral one-off negotiation, NATO is pretend to be movements.
should we support them?
would should be treated as such. overwheiming of this country ficial' reach parts in Western Europe.
dent peace will become mass movements.
Nevertheless, 'multilateralist' savagely repressed.
The 39 ful about whether of Western and explanation.
for leaving the nuclearisation of rights in Eastern Europe.
but only through the disruption of the existing alliances, including through unilateral disarmaWithin END there's a battle going on over te cast curopean peace To extent There is no point indulging the fantasy that by talking to the official peace committees one is talking to real movements — one isn't. The official peace committees have a role, but they are arms of government and On the other hand the real unofpeace movements are unlikely, given the repressive political systems, level strength ment. and mobilisations of their counterWe should support the indepenmovement but shouldn't have the illusion that they part of any peace movement must be a campaign which defends democracy. First this applies within NATO itself; we have the case taken. of Turkey where the peace movement as well as the workers movement is But at the same time it involves the defence of democratic rights inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
But of course some people are doubtyou should-add *new' issues to the movement, but the issue of democratic rights is a logical extension. Some people have illusions about Bastern Europe, but that can only be overcome through argument We shouldn't forget that it is NATO which is primarily responsible for the cold war and the arms race and Europe. The priority of attacking NATO is quite consistent with defending democratic 1983 is the year for the installation of the missiles. How can we stop them? What do you think is the most realistic strategy?
Well, stopping the missiles in't the only objective, even if we do there will be plenty of battles to fight. Ultimately the question of peace is a question of political power. Mass mobilisation on its own won't stop the missiles if it ignores the existing institutions of Mass mobilisation is one part. But the most realistic strategy is the election of a party, in this case the Labour Party, which will carry out the pro gramme of disarmament.
Labour covernment is elected we 1 need to keep up the pressure through extra-parliamentary extraLabour Party mobilisation. But a strong peace movement can even put some pressure on a right wing govern20 years ago Edward Thompson forward the view that government which attempted to unilaterally disarm and withdraw from NATO would be subverted and de-stabilised by the US and their allies in Britain - and that of socialist self-defense would have to be To what extent would unilateral necessity be part of an overall socialist project?
agerations perspective is nouldntshouldn't ALEC aLIO. underestimate the determination of the United States. Il it formally acquiesced in a decision to unilaterally disarm, behind the scenes it would do everything possible to reverse that decision - in an alliance with reacnonary sectors Such a unilateral decision would not be the end of the battle. One could imauteure and political pressures the USA could bring.
Unilateral disarmament could be carried out by a national capitalist government of the Swedish type; but very strong measures would have to be taken economically and politically in conjunction with unilateral disarmament to make it stick. At the moment the only forces in Britain with the clarity and determination to do that are the socialist forces. IT'S NICE to know that the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) cares for its workers - but only up to limit! Last week the head radiological protection at the tional Nuclear evidence at the Sizewell B inquiry. He carefully explained changes had been incorporated in the plans to reduce radiation doses. well and good. Unfortunately for the CEGB he then blew it by going on to explain that would have reduced the radiation risk even further had been thrown out as being unreasonably costly!
STILL ON Sizewell, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has tailed to come up with the goods. Concurrently with the public inquiry, the inspectorate was supposed to run a full safeLy assessment. assessment has not yet taken place. It would be difficult to know exactly which unpleasant fact is causing the hold up ...
MEANWHILE, the joint European project is on the verge of being abandoned. 'Super Sara' was launched about two years ago. It is a nuclear safety project study accidents like the Three Mile Island near melt-down. has failed to come up with ideas about how such accidents can be avoided. It has run massively over budget, and it presumably threatens to reveal embarassing details about the safety of AS WE GO to press the signatories of the London Dumping (LDC), which controls the dumping London. They amendment to the Convention which would ban all radioactive dumping at sea. Last year, under the LDC provisions Britain dumped a total of 2,700 tons of waste in However, they didn't manage to do it opposition Greenpeace organisation managed to cause some disruption. So much so, in fact, that the dumping consortium -Nirex — has just acquired a new ship so that it can dumo wastes through the bottom of the ship without interference from Greenpeace. out for the Greenpeace submarine!
of *Wed 16 Feb Scottish Students human chain for *Books not Bombs vinistry or berence to une scolish educa tion Office in Glasgow Strathclyde University CND KOal Feb LEDOUT General Meeting. Delegates must be full Greenpeace inflatable boat.
London Ne of Celebration -NaCorporation, gave 01-263 0977 that design *Fri 25 Feb -Council/Hounslow *Sat/Sun which change!
anti-nuclear St. Glasgow Needless to say, the ICTCHCC Restaurant, Perth. 'Super Sara Strathclyde of Scotland!
designed to Festival The project Greenham Led)
Greenham Aldermaston Glasgow Convention are considering an Movement Conte lege.
the Atlantic.
tion and the festival village.
Arms sleigh Street, Watch the US *6 Aug Organised by •CND Annua . Credentials from 11 Goodwin St., Cabration and Benei 3.0pm als are Benefit 8.00pm at The Mal. London. Details fron *Tues 22 Feb National lobby of Parlia • Sun 6 Mar Hounslow CND Anti-Nuclear Week. Details from 01-577 3429 Feb Conference Against Sizewell 'B', Blackfriars Settle ment, Nelson Square, Waterloo, London. Details from 37 Cowley Rd, Oxfor * Sat 26 Feb Labour CND fringe meetin *Mon 28 Feb Showing of John Pilger's film "The Truth Game' at * Sat 5 March Scottish TUC CND Conference. 10am AUEW Halls, West Regent *Sun 6 March Women's blockade of Faslane Naval Base. 10am-4pm Tel: 041 221 1177 on Saturdays for details.
12.30-2pm *March 7-19 (provisional). Distribution Regional Council nuclear broadsheet to every home in the region. (This covers half of the populatior *Sun 20 March Faslane Peace Camp *Thur 31 Mar 12 hour blockade of women ony and Burghfield Royal Ordinance Factory (mix*Fri 1 April 14 mile human chain from Common to Burghfield via Starts 1.30pm, followed by *Sat 2 April Scottish CND March in Starts in George Square and ends at Carnival in Kelvingrove Park *8-10 April Nuclear Free North Atlantic Conference Mitchell Theatre Glasgow. *Sat 30 April East London Labour *Sat 7 May Youth CND Festival for . Starts at 1lam with a demonstraEmbankment marching Brockwell Park. Bands, speakers and a *Thur 12 May Day of Action against production at Thorn-Brymar's Brimsdown site in Enfield. Organised by Concon Kenon vos Tade mon sui committee. Details from LRCND, 6 End, London WCI. *31 May-3 June Four day blockade of base at Upper Heyford. . Details from 43 Peacock Street, London SE17. *oat g June Ant-rident Convention Kelvin Hall Arena, Glasgow. Starts 11am Hiroshima Day. Labour Par misiles. Also marches from all over Bri CACHOT tain to Greenham Common. *22 October Projected date for CND national demonstration in London. Socialist Challenge 18 February 1983 pag