p The pacifist idea of disarmament education presupposes two processes: (1) political education, which gives the public certain information, and (2) socio-psychological education, which seeks to create a certain system of values and attitudes to disarmament and fosters certain traits of character.

p The proponents of peace education consider that theirs is the only possible way, because, as they put it, the absence of political will and desire at the governmental level is keeping the problem of disarmament at a standstill.  [338•1  They claim that "the main, perhaps the only, hope for the future is that the public will learn the facts in time and that an aroused public opinion will force reluctant politicians to stop the arms race and reduce armaments".  [338•2  Those who are studying the problem of peace and disarmament education stress that information used in the process of political education must be reliable, coming from sources which are as objective as possible, and must help to convince the public that disarmament can be achieved soon, within the life time of the present generation, and not at some time in the remote future. But if attention is drawn more to the obstacles in the way of disarmament (which, of course, do exist), that, they say, will create doubts as to the possibility of curbing the arms race and achieving disarmament, and such education will yield no positive results. Information, they say, should aim at exposing such militaristic concepts as "limited nuclear war", the “humane” neutron bomb, etc., and at opposing attempts to revive cold war mania. This, without a doubt, is an advantage of peace education.

p Spreading reliable information for disarmament in a language the broad public can understand is especially important, they say, to counter the Western propaganda machine’s assertions that the arms race is uncontrollable, inevitable, necessary, and even useful. The torrent of militaristic propaganda aims to convince the public that the issues involved in limiting the arms race and in disarmament are too technical for the man in the street.  [338•3  This type of propaganda has given rise to feelings of political helplessness and fear, clearing the way for a continued arms race.

p Peace educators see the development of an alternative security system as the key component of disarmament.

p The word “disarmament”, they say, sounds negative, because it suggests correcting old mistakes (just like the words “limitation”, “reduction”, “de-escalation”, etc.), instead of creating something positive.  [338•4  Therefore, say the 339 disarmament educators, a strategy for attaining world peace should concentrate less on the process of disarmament itself, and more on working out "blueprints of a peaceful world" and "images of a disarmed world", associated with the kind of security system that would be an alternative to rearmament.  [339•1  Those examining the problems of peace in the West believe it is impossible to start disarming to any effective degree now, because political leaders and the public at large are convinced that in the present world situation disarmament would allegedly undermine national security.  [339•2 

p Very little is known about any other security systems for individuals or whole nations, they say. Neither the theory of international relations, nor the history of diplomacy say anything about an alternative approach to national security. Nations on the whole find it difficult to imagine a world without arms, where individuals and nations would not need weapons for self-defence.  [339•3  That is why, in their opinion, the general public would be suspicious of disarmament.

p Of course, it is quite logical that disarmament should be accompanied by measures to ensure international security. The Soviet Union has always spoken out for effective political and legal guarantees for international security. However, according to the disarmament educators, disarmament is dependent on an alternative security system. Some scholars even go so far as to say that too much emphasis on disarmament would dampen public interest in disarmament education.

p These analysts lose sight of the fact that it is precisely detente in the military sphere plus effective steps towards disarmament that could develop the mutual trust necessary for political detente and co-operation between states with different social systems. They play down the issue of disarmament as such, going off on various tangents. Many of their arguments strongly suggest that as soon as an effective alternative to armies is found, disarmament will cease to be a political issue and will become a purely technical one.

p Such an approach only proves that they oversimplify the motives behind the arms race and deliberately ignore the real differences between foreign policies of different states: that some are built on peaceful co-existence, others on aggressive imperialism.

p Their vague abstractions about an alternative security system in the shape of the so-called world political unity are strongly reminiscent of the federalist ideas of a "world government" with its "citizens of the world". Their Utopian plans of world organisation ignore the fact that the world today is divided into two opposing social systems.

p Many of the peace researchers blame the arms race on the Soviet Union as well as on the United States, turning a blind eye to the facts. In this they are influenced by bourgeois theoreticians who ascribe to socialist countries the same socio-political mechanisms stimulating the arms build-up that exist in capitalist society. This approach tends to gloss over the differences between aggressive US-NATO policies aimed at gaining military superiority and world domination, and the peace policy of the Soviet Union and the whole socialist community, which aims at peaceful co-existence and co-operation between states with different social systems.

p This dual, contradictory approach is typical of the disarmament educators. They prefer to forget that the Soviet Union has always been willing to come to a mutually acceptable agreement with the United States on any measure curbing the arms race and promoting disarmament. And this is proved by the wide range of Soviet initiatives on disarmament.

p The Soviet proposals show who is really trying to stop the arms race and start the process of disarmament; they show that allegations that the Soviet Union and the United States are equally responsible for the arms race have nothing in common with the facts.

p A number of the peace experts criticise any partial measures in disarmament, belittling or even denying the benefits from international arms limitation agreements already signed. They accuse the governments negotiating for disarmament of giving up the idea of general and complete disarmament and settling for partial measures. Some of them, it is true, believe that the first aim of disarmament education could be limited to acknowledging that multilateral disarmament under effective international control is better for 341 international security than continuing the arms race;  [341•1  that partial measures leading to arms reductions, and to disarmament itself, are correct and necessary in order to eventually reach a peaceful system,  [341•2  and should be based only on " parallel or mutual or symmetrical international interactions between the blocs",  [341•3  bearing in mind the interests of all, with equal initiative and equal consequences for all parties.  [341•4  At the same time they believe that if problems of disarmament are only tackled one by one, without real changes in the system of international relations as a whole, this will not promote general and complete disarmament.

p This all-or-nothing approach, which underrates the use^ fulness of partial measures, is typical for bourgeois idealism and utopism because, while the world is divided into two opposite social systems, general and complete disarmament can be reached only by way of a gradual, stage-by-stage process accompanied by effective measures to guarantee international security.

p And yet, disarmament education should not be judged too one-sidedly, because it definitely has a number of positive elements.

p The Final Document of the World Congress on Disarmament Education says that disarmament education must take into account the principles of international law based on the UN Charter, particularly the renunciation of the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states, peaceful settlement of disputes, non-interference in the internal affairs and self- determination of peoples.

p Disarmament educators agree that poverty will never be overcome while such a large percentage of world resources is wasted on war preparations. Therefore, systematic reductions in military spending followed by the transition to disarmament would allow nations to rechannel these great material and scientific resources into socio-economic and cultural development. They call for scaling down war production and switching the military industry over to peaceful production, believing that this would lead not to unemployment but to economic prosperity.

p The anti-war essence of education for peace and disarmament is, of course, self-evident. Fear of a nuclear war, concern for the future of civilisation and of mankind itself, and a more realistic assessment of the balance of forces in the world are what make peace educators seek a new approach to the issues of war and peace, reject policies from positions of strength and the use or threat of use of force as an instrument in politics, and try to build a peaceful system of international relations.

A stable peace and a just and democratic system of international relations depend on a number of important economic, social and political factors. Peace and disarmament education could do much to turn Western public opinion in favour of peace and disarmament. And although the movement for such education in the West is heterogeneous and lacks ideological unity, it nevertheless is a great potential in the campaign for peace and disarmament and against the arms race.