p Georg Kwiatowski— member of the WMR Editorial Council and representative of the German Communist Party on WMR

p Unni Krishnan— member of the National Council of the Communist Party of India, member of the WMR Editorial Board and Editorial Council, and representative of the CPI on WMR

p THERE are events which can be adjudged from the outset—and with absolute certainty—as landmarks of their day. The Soviet-US Treaty on the elimination of medium- and shorter-range missiles, signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in Washington on December 8, 1987 we think, is one such event. It is a landmark not just for 1987: people all over the world had been looking forward impatiently to it as a symbol of the real hope to avert the risk of self-annihilation facing humanity at the threshold of the third millennium.

p Over the years the forces of peace and socialism have been fighting valiantly against the nuclear arms race. The agreements on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and the ban on their tests in the three media were importants steps. The SALT-1 and SALT-2 treaties put constraints on the deployment of the more dangerous strategic offensive systems. But the nuclear arms race nevertheless continued, and weapons kept piling up and becoming more and more sophisticated from year to year.

p The ‘zero-zero’ treaty between the USSR and the USA effectively eliminates, for the first time in history, two classes of nuclear weapons and thus marks the starting point for real progress on the road to disarmament. It 6 is a turning point of historic importance to the whole world! It showed for the first time ever that disarmament is possible. The hope of millions of people, the cause to which immense efforts have been committed, is beginning to take on flesh. Saying so, we do not at all lose sight of the reality that the missiles that are to be dismantled constitute just a modicum of the nuclear arms arsenals. The elimination of 2,000 warheads does not remove the danger: there are around 50,000 such warheads in the world. But the first step taken by the two sides has special meaning because it has been taken in the new, right and, moreover, only possible direction towards human survival.

p Rajeshwara Rao, General Secretary of the National Council of the Communist Party of India, has stated: "Mikhail Gorbachev deserves every credit for the ability and sense of purpose he has shown ... It is a good beginning for the process towards the total abolition of weapons of mass annihilation." There have been many more responses from various representatives of the broad international public, Communists and noncommunists alike, welcoming the ‘zero-zero’ treaty as a landmark in the history of East-West relations, a hopeful sign and proof of the possibility to stop the mad arms race at least in some areas and to slow down the dynamics of arms escalation.

p Now that the treaty has been signed, some quarters would like to present it as a result of the ’policy from strength’ that the US Republican Administration has been pursuing and its ‘victory’: the ‘intransigent’ Soviet Union supposedly realised that the West was standing firm and at last made concessions. The US military-industrial complex needs this tale both to rationalise the arms race without precedent in peace time that has been going on in the past seven years and to justify its new rounds in the future.

p The INF missile treaty is not at all the fruit of policy ’from strength’ or of the intensive arms race. It is a result of the unprecedentedly favourable climate for the cause of peace and disarmament, created in the world by growing awareness of the perils of the arms race. That ground swell of struggle for peace contributed significantly towards the Soviet-US treaty. Its most important aspect was the innovative and dynamic foreign policy of the Soviet Union which, jointly with all the Warsaw Treaty member countries, put forward a series of bold and far-reaching proposals for disarmament. They gave a new dimension to the mass movement for the prevention of nuclear catastrophe and for curbing the arms race. Having pooled their efforts, the peace forces denied the opponents of accords any chance to thwart the planned disarmament measures. It is the opponents of the treaty who have lost, while both sides stand to gain regardless of how many missiles and warheads either would scrap: It is a victory for the whole of humanity!

p That effective policy of peace relies on new political thinking that has originated from the Soviet Union and is a reflection of the dramatically changed realities of the late 20th century. New thinking with its common humanitarian criteria and emphasis on human reason and conscience is exerting ever greater influence on international affairs. It emphasises that our world is one and interdependent, that the alternative is to survive or to perish in it together, that security is guaranteed today not through the 7 escalation of armaments but through mutual accords, and demands a new approach to global problems. The paramount global problem is that of safeguarding peace. The INF treaty is the first tangible result of new thinking. In the words of Herbert Mies, Chairman of the German Communist Party, that accomplishment has "historic significance and constitutes an indubitable success for new thinking and a new approach". The road to agreement was anything but smooth and easy. Let us recall just some of the points on its last stretch.

p —In August 1985 the Soviet Union unilaterally halted all its nuclear explosions and called for immediate talks on a total nuclear test ban. That moratorium was extended five times but the United States did not reciprocate. The initiative was not in vain, however, as it gave a strong impetus to the mass movement of millions all over the world for a nuclear test ban and demonstrated anew who really wants an end to the pernicious competition in modernising the nuclear arms arsenals and who wants it continued.

p —-In November 1985, the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and the US President said in their joint statement at the end of the Geneva meeting that nuclear war must never be fought and that there will be no winners in it. That statement further stimulated the struggle for the elimination of nuclear weapons, although Washington’s policy afterwards was in many ways controversial and sometimes even contrary to the spirit of the statement.

p —On January 15, 1986, the Soviet Union announced a programme for the total abolition of nuclear weapons in the world by the year 2000, which became a veritable manifesto of human survival. The Soviet Union’s stand was consonant with the view of the international public, represented, among others, by the Delhi Six (India, Argentina, Sweden, Greece, Mexico and Tanzania). The idea of and programme for a nuclear-free world were further elucidated in the Delhi Declaration on the Principles for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free and Non-Violent world.

p —The Soviet Union and other socialist countries launched at the United Nations a series of new major initiatives, including a blueprint for a comprehensive system of international security.

p —The Warsaw Treaty member countries addressed NATO and all the European states with the proposal for cutting the armed forces to the level of ’structural non-aggressiveness’.^^1^^ They also advanced the idea of comparing the military doctrines of the two alliances, removing suspicion that has accumulated over the years and revising the military doctrines so as to make them exclusively defensive; they suggested that zones free from both nuclear and chemical weapons be established and that chemical weapons be prohibited and eliminated; another proposal was for the elaboration of effective measures of verifying arms reductions, including on-site inspection.

p —The Soviet-US meeting in Reykjavik gave a new dimension to the struggle against the nuclear threat. The leaders of the USSR and the USA reached an unprecedented understanding on the possibility of and need for drastic reductions in the nuclear arms arsenals. No agreement to this effect was concluded but new thinking continued to advance and gain ground 8 among still broader political and public circles. Although appreciations of that meeting were controversial, more and more people came to recognise that the slide of mankind into the nuclear abyss could really be stopped.

p —The practical achievements of the struggle for a nuclear-free world are related in many ways to the broad coalition of all the forces of peace, reason and realism and to the actions of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Delhi Six. Actions for peace, national liberation and social progress have grown more vigorous in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The activities of the Contadora Group and the striving of the progressive forces to have the centres of conflicts eradicated through peaceful talks, restraint from hostilities and national reconciliation in Central America, Afghanistan and Kampuchea have had a beneficial effect on the overall atmosphere.

p —Soviet and US allies made a significant contribution towards the achievement of accord and the treaty. Though technically bilateral, it is really international because it involves nine states.

p —Helmut Kohl, Federal Chancellor of the FRG, consented to the removal of Pershing-lA missiles from his country (after much nerveracking, and not the least because 81 per cent of the West German voters wanted it and because the Soviet Union and the United States had already reached understanding to this effect) and thus cleared a major obstacle to the agreement. Realistic politicians from other capitalist countries also contributed to the final result.

p Millions of people today try in various ways to make themselves heard when it comes to decisions bearing on peace, disarmament and human survival. ’People’s diplomacy’ is growing in importance. The peace movement is gaining momentum, launching ever broader actions and formulating ever clearer goals for itself. The Socialist International and most of the Socialist and Social Democratic parties strongly oppose steps towards nuclear self-annihilation. The trade unions, the Greens, the Liberals, ’the clergy and certain conservative forces are growing more and more active in the efforts for disarmament and for a nuclear-free world. Even some of the big bourgeoisie are turning to the ideas of peaceful coexistence. This process has been facilitated to a large extent by the increasingly vigorous actions of the anti-nuke movements of natural scientists, physicians, teachers and other professionals who use their knowledge and cite hard facts to demonstrate to the general public the dangers in store for humanity if the arms race is not stopped.

p The Communists the world over appreciate these efforts and, being a part of the worldwide, peace movement, continue to contribute in various ways towards the saving of world civilisation.

p The more adventuristic forces of imperialism had to beat a retreat under the pressure of world public opinion, which is being determined to an ever larger degree by the realistic forces. Another factor was the aggravating crisis phenomena in the world capitalist economy: astronomical state debts, panic at the stock markets of New York and other capitalist centres, and rivalry between various groups of the monopoly bourgeoisie and between those who represent them in politics. A broad opposition to the pressure of the arms-making corporations and the Pentagon has coalesced 9 in US Congress. The pendulum is swinging back: the realistic quarters in the US ruling classes are pushing back the forces of confrontation.

p The demands for a curb on the insatiable appetite of the military are growing more and more popular in view of the chronic and ever rising budget deficit and political leaders cannot help heeding them. It is clearer than ever that the imperialist policy of the arms race has been the largest single drain on the US economy_fin the past few years and has stretched it to the limit. The world’s aggregate military spending was close to one trillion dollars last year, which is comparable to the loss of property in the two world wars. The arms race has cast a. cloud not only over the physical survival of mankind but also over its socio-economic progress.

p The first UN-sponsored international conference on the relationship between disarmament and development in New York in AugustSeptember 1987 stated that disarmament and development were the two most urgent problems facing mankind. In the developing world almost 1.3 billion people live in misery, around 800 million are undernourished, 850 " million are illiterate, and one billion have no housing worthy of a human being. In the industrialised countries the arms race diverts resources from the solution of priority economic and social problems. In other words, the world can either carry on the arms race and perish or disarm itself and take the road of stable and balanced development. There is no other choice. Small wonder that more and more politicians and businessmen in capitalist countries urge the abolition of the wasteful strategy of ’security through armaments’. The reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons and the non-militarisation of space therefore constitute an economic as well as political imperative. The concept of ’disarmament for development’ is winning ever broader support.

p Characteristically, even some of those who belong to the inner circle of the military-industrial complex are critical of Washington’s nuclear strategy. Former US Defence Secretary Robert McNamara lambastes in his book Blundering into Disaster Reagan’s policy of the runaway arms build-up and strongly urges drastic cuts in the arms arsenals. Seven former Pentagon chiefs joined most of the American people in approving the INF accord.

p The treaty gives a strong impetus to all the peace campaigners by demonstrating that their efforts have not been and will not be in vain. But there may be setbacks as well.

p The West German peace movement, for instance, was campaigning throughout the early 1980s against the deployment of Pershing and Cruise missiles in the country, but they were deployed all the same. A defeat? No: although the main goal was not achieved, the political climate in the FRG changed. Some of the peace campaigners lost heart, others had second thoughts, but the German Communist Party firmly believed that there was no reason to despair: the new situation should be thought over and struggle continued in the changed conditions. It is now clear that that stand was correct and that, generally speaking, optimism, patience and perseverance are a must in the struggle for peace and disarmament.

p It is only to he expected that the enemies of military detente and nuclear disarmament will try to turn the tables. Immediately following the 10 announcement of the agreement of principle on the INF, Supreme Allied Commander Europe John Galvin said that the loss of the medium-range missiles should be compensated with the development of other systems. The militarist Steel Helmet faction in West Germany responded to the news of the ‘zero-zero’ agreement with a call for improving small-range missiles and for more strenuous efforts on the ’star wars’ programme, while The New York Times raised the alarm: "If Wall Street abhors uncertainty, it ought to be looking with particular unease at the prospects of the military contractors that make billions of dollars from the production of nuclear weapons . . . Psychology of the marketplace may dictate a decline in share prices of arms makers, as stockholders disarm their portfolios in anticipation of any substantial agreement to control the superpowers’ nuclear inventories." The opponents of the treaty are now gathering forces to block its ratification by US Congress.

p The signing of the accord therefore is no reason for complacency: it ushered in another stage of struggle for disarmament. The peace forces, including the Communists, face new tasks. There is a long and arduous road to travel to a universal agreement on the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Realistically, the difficult problem of disarmament can be resolved only through step-by-step partial agreements.

p The next item on the agenda is 50 per cent cuts in the strategic offensive weapons with strict adherence to the ABM Treaty, i.e., non-deployment of weapons in outer space. This agreement can be signed during the return visit of President Ronald Reagan to Moscow in the first half of 1988. The Soviet-US summit last December paved the way for another, even more important step towards disarmament.

p The other outstanding issues include prohibition of chemical weapons and elimination of their stocks, reduction of conventional armaments, a ban on nuclear weapon tests and establishment of nuclear-free zones. What makes the current situation entirely new is that the agreement on the elimination of medium- and shorter-range missilesxan lay the pattern for the solution of other disarmament problems and various urgent questions of international affairs.

p The US aerospace and other military monopolies and the militarist forces in general are certain tO’inake every possible effort to block changes for the better in the world and especially an agreement to reduce strategic offensive weapons.

p The task now is to make the best possible use of the treaty further to advance the process of detente and thus prepare the ground for follow-up steps towards disarmament. While doing everything we can to bring them about as soon as possible, we should by no means lose sight of the ultimate goal of the total prohibition and elimination of all nuclear weapons. The more determined the peace forces and all the realistic people in their efforts, the better the chance of success.

p The Communists do not turn their back on the difficult problems before them as they look into the future and set themselves specific goals. Exchanges of views between representatives of 178 parties and movements in Moscow during the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution were evidence of this attitude. Speakers 11 there concentrated on a search of ways to a world without nuclear weapons, war of violence by the 21st century and on how to involve other forces in that search.

p But is that goal at all realistic? Is it possible to achieve a situation in which war between the two systems will be absolutely ruled out? Imperialism has lost none of its aggressiveness or expansionistic ambitions in the military, economic, political, ideological and cultural fields. At the same time we see the world changing and possibilites for curbing the aggressiveness of the militarist forces growing. The strength and influence of socialism and the efforts of all those who vigorously oppose imperialism and work for peace have already brought about a substantial shift in the alignment of forces on the world scene.

p It is possible, we are convinced, to create conditions which will rule out world war. The first step towards a nuclear-free world taken last year obliges all of us to work even more concertedly and purposefully in the struggle for the greatest value humanity has, life. Throughout his long history man has always had enough strength to surmount obstacles and difficulties in his way. We are optimists and say with certainty that the present one will be no exception in this sense!

 ^^1^^ Which means that a country’s armed forces are structured so as to be sufficient for defence but insufficient for offensive operations.