The Peace Calendar Vol.2, No.11: December 1984
By Metta Spencer
The new Canadian government, like the previous one, has stated its advocacy of nuclear disarmament in theory, while actually voting in the United Nations against resolutions calling for a nuclear freeze. On November 20, Canada was one of only 12 countries voting against such a moratorium.
Three freeze resolutions were before the First Committee (the Disarmament Committee) on that day.
The one that most closely approximates the position advocated by the international freeze movement is sponsored this year by Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sweden and Uruguay. It was supported by 111 nations, including Australia, Ireland, and two NATO countries, Denmark and Greece. Seven nations abstained: Bahamas, China, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and New Zealand. The 12 nations voting against the resolution were Belgium, Canada, France, West Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Portugal, Turkey, Britain and the United States.
The resolution urges both superpowers “to proclaim, either through. simultaneous unilateral declarations or through a joint declaration, an immediate nuclear arms freeze, which would be the first step toward the comprehensive program of disarmament…”
The substance of the resolution amounts to the following four provisions:
The resolution further stipulates that these actions would be subject to verification procedures, such as those already agreed to in SALT I and SALT II, and in earlier negotiations on the Comprehensive Test. Ban. This freeze would have. an initial duration of five years, to be prolonged when other nuclear weapon states join it.
A recent Gallup poll showed that 85 per cent of Canadians want such a freeze. Moreover, the incomplete poll of M.P.s by the Election Priorities Project turned up 109 Tories who personally support a freeze, provided that it be balanced and not lock either side into nuclear superiority.
External Affairs Minister Joe Clark defended the govenment’s decision in the House of Commons on the grounds that the freeze initiative would be “counterproductive” since. it would create “tensions within NATO”
Canadian peace organizations quickly expressed dismay at this decision. A statement was prepared by Operation Dismantle and endorsed by a number of other groups, including Project Ploughshares, Science for Peace, the United Church Peace Network and the World Federalists, urging the government to reverse its position when the motion comes before the whole General Assembly, probably in early December. These peace groups urge others to send wires and phone calls immediately, before the final vote.
There are two objectives in stimulating a public response, according to Ploughshares officer Ernie Regehr. One is to get the vote changed. The other is to demonstrate support for those people in the new govenment who are working to change Canada’s policy toward support for actual nuclear disarmament.
Canada would not be the first country to change its vote. This year, for example, Australia has come over to supporting the freeze, stating that this shift is in response to world opinion and domestic concerns.
By Hamish Wilson
TORONTO — Maintaining that “Canada and NATO could get along very well without each other,” retired Major-General Leonard Johnson recently criticized the current Canadian perceptions about our role in NATO and condemned the horrors of nuclear weaponry and militarism in a lecture on November 22 presented by University College and Science for Peace.
Because of his experience in the military, Johnson said he had realized that technology had changed the nature of war, making conventional military strategy and weapons redundant and obsolete. Nonetheless, “nuclear weapons are not capable of serving any useful purpose” in war.
Johnson, the former commandant of the National Defence College, said that any future nuclear conflict would be waged only by technicians manning computer terminals.”
However, Johnson said that “war is a product of human institutions,” an”d called for an “ideology of peace” which will recognize that our well-being is bound up with that of others.
Saying that “the arms race is a mutually-reinforcing mechanism,” Johnson condemned the preparedness for war which only increases its likelihood. To break the cycle, he called upon scientists to refrain from developing new weapons systems, and he also urged a vocal and educated public to stop career generals from making all security and defence decisions.
Johnson described NATO as “an archaic survivor from the days of nuclear monopoly,” and called for a re-evaluation of Canada’s role in that organization. He indicated that our troops in Europe are not of a defensive nature for Canada, and that other countries (such as Sweden and Switzerland) have maintained a defensive role for centuries. At the least, Johnson said, member countries “must insist on the right to dissent publicly.”
Johnson maintained that the way to effect change was through the ballot-box, and suggested that by the next election all politicians should be responding to the concerns of the peace movement. But, while admitting that solutions cannot be completely arrived at by the politicians, he suggested that “nothing will defeat the cause more than violence.” He refused to venture into the philosophy and morality of civil disobedience.
Johnson is a member of Generals for Peace, an organization of over a dozen high-ranking retired military officers from around the world.
By Stephen Hine
TORONTO — “We live. on a terminally-ill planet and are lucky to wake up each morning.” So Dr. Helen Caldicott, a world-renowned peace activist, warned her large receptive audience at the 1984 Jacob Bronowski Memorial Lecture at the University of Toronto on Nov. 14. In a deeply moving talk, backed by hard data, Dr. Caldicott enumerated in clinical detail the perils of the escalating arms race and the folly of present nuclear strategy.
Caldicott’s address was also an impassioned call for commitment and action. Those who are alive today have one purpose in life, she said. to save the creation of which we are a part from total annihilation by nuclear weapons.
While condemning both Soviet and American policy for the present impasse, she claimed Washington had increased Cold War tensions and isolated Moscow by refusing all Soviet peace initiatives. While Nixon, whom she labelled in retrospect “a great statesman”, signed 9 arms treaties with Russia. President Reagan has signed none, has never met his Soviet counterpart and has appointed a chief arms negotiator Richard Perle who has declared publicly. he does not believe in arms control.
Caldicott stated that the US possesses 30,000 nuclear warheads and the Soviet Union, 20,000, yet even the small nuclear powers of China, France and Britain could independently destroy much of Russia.
One US Trident submarine alone has 240 warheads, each with a TNT equivalent 8 times that of the Hiroshima bomb, she pointed out. Yet the US wants 30 of the subs, a clear violation of the unratified SALT II accord. The US is also building 8,000 cruise missiles which Caldicott called highly destabilizing because they are easy to hide, hard to verify and capable of flying under Soviet radar, thereby precipitating a massive response even if only one is fired.
The Pershing II is designed to “decapitate” the Soviet leadership in 6 minutes as part of a plan to win a nuclear war, a strategy she claimed the Pentagon endorses and which she described with the objectivity of a medical practitioner.
The Pershing attack would be followed by a blanket bombing of Russia with up to 8,000 nuclear missiles, intended to obliterate the Soviets’ nuclear arsenal and all their major cities. The US would then have some left over for World War IV, NATO, Dr. Caldicott added, refuses to renounce the first use of nuclear weapons, unlike Moscow, which says, however, that it will respond with a fullscale nuclear attack even if only one NATO missile hits the Soviet Union.
“Limited nuclear war,” she claimed “is a fallacy” while “war itself is obsolete” since nothing can be gained by it. NATO strategy is designed to use some of its 6,000 tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons to blunt a conventional Soviet attack. Yet this only guarantees a devastating nuclear response. Between them, “both sides expect to fire 19,500 nuclear warheads at each other once the connict escalates as it must; thus the world would have 30 minutes more to live,” she concluded grimly. It is hard to imagine that this outcome can be averted when 80% of US ships carry nuclear weapons, and Army and Air Force units are similarly equipped on both sides. There is no real conventional defense, Caldicott said.
The result of any nuclear war would be devastating, Dr. Caldicott asserted. One 20 megaton bomb exploding above Toronto would kill all people and destroy all buildings within a 6 mile radius, while within 20 miles the heat and wind blast would cause countless more deaths and fatal, grievous injury. The effects would be felt up to 100 miles away. With the detonation of hundreds of these weapons a fallout of contaminated dust would create a shroud blotting out the sun, causing a temperature drop to -55F and damage to the ozone layer which would result in widespread deadly skin cancer. “This is nuclear winter,” she said, and it could destroy virtually all life on earth due to radiation poisoning, extreme cold and an end to vital photosynthesis.
“The prognosis is grim,” Dr. Caldicott told a hushed and shaken audience. The high probability of computer failure — there were 255 failures last year in the US and one in 1979 that brought the world to within 13 minutes of nuclear war — combined with often unstable military personnel is scary enough. Worse, she asserted, is the fact that the world is run by two old men who do not seem in complete possession of their faculties.
In “a planet out of control” she expressed deep concern over the influence of fatalistic, fundamentalist religion on Reagan and on a large portion of the American public. On a number of occasions Reagan and others in his cabinet have claimed they believe Armageddon will occur soon and that all true believers will automatically go to heaven while Russia is destroyed. This could lead the Administration to walk willingly into war, she fears.
Caldicott described a personal interview with Reagan in which she was shocked by his simplistic notions and lack of knowledge of arms issues. yet the American people in a fit “of manic denial of reality” have re-elected him, demonstrating in the process the influence of “Big Brother TV” and the power of “a Pepsi-Cola campaign.”
Despite this grim scenario, Caldicott ended her talk on a note of qualified optimism and inspiration. “Stringent action is required,” Dr. Caldicott declared, “a total commitment” to protect the world for a generation of children who feel they will never have the chance to grow up.
Caldicott called for grief and depression to be turned into constructive anger and straightforward actions, such as the lobbying of MPs, orderly demonstrations outside nuclear arms component plants, an education campaign and pressure on Canada to leave NATO — a mutual suicide pact. “Even if we fail,” she told her silent audience, some of whom wept, “we can tell our children and God, as the missiles fly, that at least we tried.”
Caldicott concluded her talk by reading Shakespeare’s sonnet “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day,” illustrating as she did so the love for the physical world and for human creativity on which her own commitment is based.
By Roy McFarlane
The government of Greenland declared their country a nuclear weapons-free zone, according to a report from the Reuter wire service, published in the Ottawa Citizen.
Greenland is now the largest landmass in the world declared a NWFZ. The declaration, made in mid-November, came as a surprise to the Danish government, the report said. Denmark is responsible for the defense of their former territory, which attained self-government five years ago. There are two American air force bases in Greenland as well as three DEW lines sites.
Mariane Stienbaek, Director of the Centre for Northern Studies at McGill University, and Co-ordinator of the Communications Committee of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) told The Peace Calendar that the declaration is a result of a series of resolutions passed by the ICC. The ICC, an international organization of Inuit, first passed a unanimous resolution in 1977 calling for nuclear weapons free zones in the North. The resolption was reaffirmed at subsequent conferences in 1980 and 1983, according to Stienbaek. Approximately 80% of the Greenland population is Inuit, and all but one of the Landsting (Parliament) is Inuit.
Stienbaek said she had no information on how the NWFZ declaration would affect the two American bases, but suggested that it meant that there could be no nuclear weapons taken there and that no planes could fly over the country carrying nuclear weapons. From the reports that she has seen, Stienbaek expects the Greenland government will now proceed to work out the details with the Danish External Affairs Department.
By Jennifer Kinloch
VANCOUVER — The Canadian conference on “Nuclear War — the Search for Solutions,” held October 19-21, was able to successfully balance the interests of the academic and those of the grassroots activist. Over 500 people attended the conference, which was sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR).
The highlight of the proceedings was a lively exchange between Soviet commentator Sergey Plekhanov and Jane Sharp of Cornell University which clearly illustrated the differences between the superpowers. Anatol Rapoport of the University of Toronto provided a mediating voice. When the three were asked why the tensions persisted and the arms race continued, Plekhanov answered that ideological differences were the root problem. Sharp pointed to violations of human rights as the source of difficulty. Rapoport attributed our plight to the technological imperative of weapons systems.
Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll gave a rousing talk Friday evening appealing to Canadians, as the sole non-European NATO ally of the United States, to playa leadership role in the move to disarmament. He pointed to Canada’s unique opportunity to interpret the needs of Europeans to our North American neighbour. He urged Canadian rejection of cruise missile testing and continued political pressure for substantive change,
Dean Michael Pentz of Britain provided a European perspective and stressed that the nature of the nuclear weapon is that it isn’t really a weapon since it was built not to be used. The impassioned talk ended on an optimistic note as Pentz pointed out that the success of the human species has always rested on its power of foresight, its ability to project problems and discern consequences,
Both the physicians speaking at the conference, Marat Vartanian of the Soviet Union and Joanne Santa Barbara of Hamilton, Ontario, contributed reports on the psychological effects of the threat of nuclear war. While Canadian and Soviet children are more pessimistic about the chances of nuclear war than American children, they are much more optimistic about the hopes for prevention and much more realistic about the consequences of a nuclear war. Santa Barbara also emphasized the positive side of anxiety as being a healthy condition of alert to an imminent threat.
The Canadian section of the conference, “Charting the Course”, was the least noteworthy. However, among the more significant contributions were the remarks of retired Admiral Robert Falls, the first Canadian to be chair of the Military committee of NATO. Falls stated that the public has highly overrated the military role in decision-making, and he called the military the mere custodians of the weapons.
Ian Carr, outgoing president of PSR, made some contentious assertions about Canada’s role in promoting disarmament. For example, he stated that “the left are not the right people to effect social change; the centre and the right must”, He also suggested that “perhaps we must be quiet about things (the cruise) we should like to be noisy about.”
The workshops focussed on some thirteen topics, but the best attended was one entitled “Strategies for the Canadian Peace Movement”, sponsored by Vancouver’s End the Arms Race coalition, This session clearly indicated that the spirit of the conference was the search for effective political action, a general consensus was reached on the need for a national coordinating body for major disarmament campaigns.
Although there was no concluding plenary session, where resolutions could have emerged, and although the issue of the economic impact of the arms race was not addressed, the conference was quite worthwhile, as will be the published proceedings that are to be produced by PSR.
By Eudora Pendergrast
TORONTO — In a precedentsetting resolution adopted during its annual convention, the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) has formally committed itself to an active role in the search for nuclear disarmament and peace.
The resolution, which received virtually unanimous support, reads as follows:
Whereas the nuclear arms race is increasing the threat to the security of life on this planet; and
Whereas it is sapping great amounts of human and financial resources that can be used to overcome poverty and build socially useful jobs and products.
Therefore be it resolved that the Onrario Federation of Labour form a Peace and Disarmament Committee to work actively with affiliates to ensure rhat the views of labour are clearly advanced within the province and to encourage the education and involvement: of trade union members in this issue.
Be it further resolved that the Ontario Federation of Labour encourages its affiliates and district labour councils to form peace and disarmament committees which will be responsible for education and activities geared towards putting the necessary pressure on our governments to help move our world from the brink of war towards improved prospects of peace based on jobs and justice.
The resolution was sponsored by the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto (LCMT) during the convention held in Toronto, November 19-22. In a first in OFL convention history, the presentation of the resolution was preceded by a showing of the film War Without Winners.
The OFL is already on record as supporting nuclear disarmament. What makes tbe November 20 resolution significant is the clear call for organizational structures and action in support of this objective.
Anne Swarbrick, chairperson of the Peace and Disarmament Committee of the LCMT, links the Council’s sponsorship of the resolution to its active involvement in the recent Peace Petition Caravan Campaign. She also notes that adoption of the resolution could set a precedent for similar actions by other provincial labour federations, and possibly the Canadian Labour Congress at its convention in the spring of 1986.
By Roy McFarlane
OTTAWA ~ Families Against Cruise Testing (FACT) is organizing a letter writing and petition campaign to bring to the Canadian government’s attention the opposition of parents and grandparents to the cruise missile tests.
According to organizer Deborah Friedman, FACT would like families to write to their own MPs and to Joe Clark, Minister of External Affairs, on the issue of the cruise missile, and to include pictures of their children.
Friedman explained that the reason for the pictures is simple. “The arms race jeopardizes everyone’s children,” she said.
The petition, which calls for an end to the cruise missile tests, has been circulating in Ottawa during the past year. Some of the names have already been presented to the government. The petition is now being sent out around the country.
For further information on both the petition and the letter writing campaign, write: FACT, 204 Patterson Ave., Ottawa, Ontario K1S lY6.
By Matthew Clark
WATERLOO ~ The first Ontario Peace Conference met in Kitchener-Waterloo on Saturday and Sunday, November 17 and 18. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the direction of the peace movement in Ontario following the completion of the Peace Petition Caravan Campaign. Over 100 delegates attended, representing peace groups and coalitions from all over Ontario.
The conference was consultative in form, and therefore no resolutions were passed, but the participants overwhelmingly favoured the formation of a decentralized national coordinating committee.
The conference agenda consisted of a mixture of presentations, floor discussions and workshops. The Saturday morning session began with a report on the Peace Petition Caravan by Lynn Connell (of Performing Artists for Nuclear Disarmament), co-ordinator of the Caravan. Connell described her trip with the Caravan from Victoria to Ottawa, and also on the meetings in Ottawa with the three party leaders.
Participants also heard reports on a number of issues facing the peace m9vement. Rick Caton (of Operation Dismantle) talked about the nuclear freeze; Metta Spencer (of the Canadian Disarmament Information Service) addressed a variety of issues, including nuclear weapon-free zones, NATO and NORAD, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Five Continent Peace Initiative; and Chris Ross (of Psychologists for Social Responsibility) spoke on implementation of a nuclear weaponfree zone campaign. I made a presentation on Networking. In addition, there were a number of brief presentations from the floor on other issues, including the cruise missile tests, Ontario Hydro’s planned sale of Tritium to the US for nuclear weapons production, and methods for strengthening international security through the United Nations.
Three workshop sessions were held, in which conference participants discussed issues, implementation of issues, and networking.. Reports from the workshops to the plenary session showed that the participants were interested in a wide variety of issues.
On Sunday morning, workshops were held on a number of specific subjects: Letter- Writing; Nonviolent Action; The Peace Calendar as a Resource; Talking to People about Nuclear War; Working with the Media; Fundraising, Small Town Organizing; the Greens; What Shall We Tell the Children?; From Non-activist to Activist; Women and Men in the Peace Movement; Strengthening the United Nations; and Mundialization.
The conference ended with a report from Bob Penner (of the Toronto Disarmament Network) on plans for a national conference some time. next year, and a floor discussion on the subject of a national co-ordinating committee.
The Ontario Peace Conference clearly demoristrated the impressive .growth and increased seriousness of the organized peace movement. This conference was roughly five times larger, both in number of participants and locations represented, than the first Southern Ontario Peace Network meeting, which was held just a-year earlier. Although a wide variety of views and strategies were represented, the participants were enthusiastically united in their commitment to work together for disarmament.
This month’s letter writing suggestion is to send two Christmas cards, preferably the Unicef type with “Peace on Earth” imprinted in English, Russian, etc., to the leaders of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. Add a short note to the card if you wish such as: “I hope disarmament is your number one priority”, “Peace will come through justice not strength” or “Peace will not come through military intervention”.
“In addition to sending these two post cards, you might write a letter to your local editor recommending the above. Also if public meetings have been planned for December ask the people attending the meeting to take 15 minutes when they arrive home to write two postcards (or provide time for letter writing during or after the meeting). Christmas cards can be addressed to: 1) President Ronald Reagan, The White House, Washington D.C., U.S.A 20500 and 2) Premier Konstantin Chernenko, The Kremlin, Moscow, U.S.S.R. Credit for this month’s letter writing suggestion goes to Barbara Halsall of Georgetown.
The NL WC would like to welcome a new member: Rimbey Organization for Universal Nuclear Disarmament (Alberta). If your group is interested in becoming part of the NL WC, please write and let me know that your group endqrses the concept and is willing to encourage peace activists in your area to write letters. Also, please send suggestions of individuals you would like to see targeted for letters.
Happy letter writing!
NLWC
clo Doug Mohr
P.O. Box 43
70 King St. N.
Waterloo, Ont. N2J 3Z6
P.S. Remember — thinking about it doesn’t change anything. Please put something in the mail.
By Fergus Watt
Is there life after forty? Or, more pointedly, can the United Nations fulfill the aims and purposes laid out in its charter some four decades ago?
This question was the focus of a conference held in Ottawa on October 26, and entitled The United nations at Forty: Crisis and Opportunity. Thirty-five of Canada’s leading diplomats, academics, disarmament experts and UN officials attended this day-long brainstorming session on the prospects for strengthening the world body.
The presence of Canada’s new UN Ambassador, Stephen Lewis, added a special significance to the event, which was sponsored by the United Nations Association in Canada. Many speakers used the occasion to propose specific ideas which could be incorporated in Canadian policy.
The conference was shaped by Douglas Roche, Canada’s newly appointed Disarmament Ambassador and president of the United Nations Association in Canada. The conference underlined the Conservative government’s commitment to improving the UN as a cornerstone of what Brian Mulroney has called “the central issue confronting our generatton — the prevention of nuclear war.”
The discussion began with a lengthy address from a special guest at the roundtable, UN Assistant Secretary General Robert Muller, who offered a list of suggestions for strengthening the UN’s ability to maintain peace and security. These included:
Muller also remarked on the need for more balanced news coverage of the UN and its 32 organizations, so that the UN’s successes, and not just its failures, are brought to public attention.
Muller’s comments on the need for global education were echoed by other panelists. For example, Margaret Catley-Carlson, President of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA, the Canadian government’s primary aid-giving body), called for “a major campaign to emphasize the UN’s many glorious successes.” And John Sigler, Political Science Professor at Carleton University and a Director of the new Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, suggested that Canadian communities could hold special ceremonies during the UN’s 40th anniversary to commemorate those military personnel who died while serving in UN peacekeeping missions.
Sigler also proposed a UN conference on peacekeeping. The last such conference, held in 1970, was “very successful,” he said. Furthermore, “Canada has something to say to the US on this subject.” This proposal was seconded by Dr. George Ignatieff, Chancellor of the University of Toronto and a former UN Ambassador. Ignatieff added that an I nternational Peacekeeping CoriJerence should place ISMA — an International Satellite Monitoring Agency — high on its agenda.
Ignatieff also suggested that the UN hold an International Conference on Peace and Security, a suggestion which was taken up by many of the experts present. Robert Muller suggested that such a conference, if proposed by Canada, should be a UN Continuing Conference modelled after the successful Law of the Sea Conference.
David Lee, Canada’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, said that Canada could mobilize a coalition of `friends of the UN.’ This notion was also mentioned in Joe Clark’s address to the General Assembly and is, therefore, likely to be followed up by Stephen Lewis and his UN team.
Another forceful speaker at the roundtable was Maxwell Cohen who, until recently, served as a Judge Ad Hoc of the International Court of Justice in the Gulf of Maine Boundary Dispute (between Canada and the US). Cohen noted the growing body of international law which could be used by nations to settle disputes peacefully. Yet most nations still do not submit to the authority of the World Court. At a time when so many pressing problems are multilateral, our interdependence forces a tribal retreat to a nation-state mode of thinking.” Thus we are confronted with a paradox, says Cohen, “Never has there been such a multiplicity of international law which could be used by nations to settle disputes; yet, never has there been so many intrusions and violations of international law.”
At the end of the deliberations Stephen Lewis was asked to comment on the day’s “harvest of ideas.’” Although he was unable to give direct comments on each proposal, he did offer a few general observations. He assured the panel that Canada’s new entente with the United ,States would not restrict the government’s efforts to improve the UN and other multilateral institutions. He also reported that Joe Clark has directed him to tell UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar that Canada will work actively to increase the power of the Secretary-General’s Office. And Lewis also warmed to the idea of a UN Conference on International Security, saying “It may just be one of those initiatives that Canada could take — a sort of elixir for the UN, to give it a shot in the arm and to give the people of the world some hope.”
In holding this conference on the eve of the UN’s 40th anniversary, Canada became the first country to respond to the Secretary-General’s challenge to use the occasion to “… undertake a review and propose concrete programmes of action in order to strengthen commitment to the aims and purposes of the Organization.”
Perhaps Canada will also be a leader in transforming the present `crisis’ into an `opportunity’ to strengthen the UN.
Fergus Watt is editor of the Canadian World Federalists.
By Beth Richards
OTTAWA — When Douglas Roche was appointed Ambassador for Disarmament he didn’t waste any time in re-defining the function behind the title. One of his first moves was to re-vamp the Consultative Group on Arms Control and Disarmament. Invitations went out to about sixty individuals asking them to attend a conference in Ottawa on November 9 and 10.
Organized by the Canadian Centre for, Arms Control and Disarmament, the conference drew together a wide range of opinion on a numberofsubjects, including workshops on Influence with Washington and with the Soviets; Influence in NATO and on the UN; The Militarization of Space; Non-proliferation; Verification; and The Linkage between Disarmament and Development.
Under the previous ambassador, the Consultative Group had twenty members, primarily academics and specialists. This time, however, an effort was made to draw grassroots organizers and activists into the dialogue.
It was the first time that many of the participants had the opportunity to exchange views with representatives from External Affairs and the Department of National Defense. Obviously, there were differences of opinion on a number of issues including definitions of defense, security and even “reality.” Nevertheless, there was a positive air of open dialogue and a desire to continue the initiative.
On the last day of the conference, participants discussed the future role of the Consultative Group.
It was generally agreed that broad representation from the peace community is necessary if the process is to be truly consultative: In addition, peace movement representatives felt the agenda had been too cumbersome to allow sufficient time for discussion of specific issues, pertinent to Canada, such as the cruise missile testing.
The conference was organized at last minute notice and, for this reason, many participants did not see the agenda until a few days before. Prior to the next meeting of the Consultative Group, it is hoped that representatives will have the opportunity to discuss the agenda and make recommendations before it is firmly set.
Ambassador Roche made it clear that he intends to meet with peace groups as much as possible in the coming months. He cautioned that moving the bureaucracy is no easy task and stressed an “inch-by-inch” approach. Although Roche is undoubtedly sincere and committed, time will tell if the government is prepared to move forward even an inch. It has displayed a willingness to listen, however, and that is a positive sign.
By Roy McFarlane
OTTAWA — It is still not clear if Joe Clark’s disarmament report will ever be made public. Inquiries made to the press offices of both Mr. Clark’s ministry of External Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office revealed little.
Vivian Taylor, in the press office of the Prime Minister, said that there was no information on when it may be released. While Louise de Lafayette, in Mr. Clark’s office, said that she had no information on whether or not the report will be released, she did say that Clark indicated that it will be used when the government holds its foreign policy review.
The foreign policy review, to be conducted shortly, will involve public participation, and will look at Canada’s current policies and any changes that the present government may undertake.
Mr. Clark’s disarmament report was compiled following puhlie meetings across Canada and private talks with diplomats and others outside of Canada. The meetings were held before the recent election campaign. at the request of Brian Mulroney. It is now up to the Prime Minister to decide whether or not to release the report.
By Shirley Farlinger
The A-Team, soldiers of fortune living on the edge,” has all the latest military equipment: helicopters, combat attack gyrocopters with working bomb release, interceptor jet bombers, tactical vans, etc. These will help defeat “the Bad Guys they dare to challenge the A-Team.” The pilot is Howling Mad Murdock. Or as President Richard Nixon described it to Bob Haldemann “I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war.”
If you don’t want to enlist in the A-Team, you can always become a G.I. Joe. The Cobra Battle Game has 12 rockets and can “knock out the enemy base.” The Combat Jet Skystriker has 2 phoenix, 2 sidewinder and 2 sparrow missiles and an ejection seat and parachute for G.I. Joe Ace to save himself. The Cobra Command Weapon is a tank with two diabolo cannons and the Amphibious Personnel Carrier APC carries 28 soldiers, not included. To add to the realism there are flashing “laser” lights and battle sounds.
The centrepiece is the Headquarters Command Centre with heliopad, searchlights, cameras and machine guns. You have to pay the full price before you find out what the top secret weapons on the inside really are.
Exciting, isn’t it? War always is.
But this is cheaper than the real thing. Helicopters are $14.99, tanks $22.99 and the whole headquarters full of secret weapons is just $34.99. Available at The Bay.
The missiles are soft foam and just as useless as nuclear missiles in modern war. And the game is just as winnable as nuclear war, ie. in double suicide there are no winners. Yet the idea that the enemy must be destroyed before it destroys you is the illogical theory for military games large and small.
To maintain the present chronic state of war the population must be ready. After all it is their money and the sums are enormous. One MX missile costs $210 million. One B-1 bomber is $280 million, mobile single warhead missiles are cheap at $107 million, a supercarrier is $3.5 billion, a destroyer $1 billion and an F-15 aircraft is $20 million. Next year nerve gas will cost $54 million.
But the next generation, the people who will really have to pay the U.S. military deficit, will be all set to cooperate. It was fun. They started, as recommended, at age 5. They know that defence and deterrence are sound theories and that “Captain Bludd and Destro” must be destroyed, whoever and wherever they are.
The “toys” do not have to be assembled or painted. Previous military model kits at least pretended that the activity was model-building. Now the idea is to create your own battle scenes. War is a game, military exercises really are called war games, and they are given such fun names as ‘Jolly Rabbit.’ Targets are destroyed. Our Canadian soldiers, part of the RIMPAC war games last year destroyed an island in the Hawaiian group which, although uninhabitable, was a valuable archeological site. It’s easier to do this if you know everything about war games and nothing about archeology.
Conditioning is all-important. So last year the American military spent $887,000 to promote rifle practice for youth groups such as the Boy Scouts and the Y.M.C.A., and $75 million was spent in Canada on Canadian Cadet organizations.
But the game of war is ultimately a computer game. That’s why Reagan praised the use of video games as good training for the young. It’s all a question of being fast on the button. If you stopped to think about it, some relevant ideas might enter your mind. Ideas like:
The trouble is, all these considerations require patience and intelligence. G.I. Joe has never been long on either.
War toys come in two sizes. Unfortunately boys do too.
By Deb Ellis
TORONTO — If “The Form of Photon” makes you think of a bad science-fiction movie, you wouldn’t be far wrong. Coming to us from where else — Dallas, Texas, Photon can be likened to a high-tech survival game, a live-in star wars, and another step in persuading an ignorant and apathetic populace of the power of the pistol.
For $3.50 per game (plus a $5 annual membership fee), players are divided into 2 teams of up to 10 each, then issued special space helmets and “phaser guns.” They then spend the next 6 minutes running around and shooting at each other. Instead of the forest terrain of the outdoor “survival” games, the battle-ground of Photon is “a sci-fi playing field of lights, mazes, tunnels, artificial fog machines and electronic sensors.” (Toronto Star, Aug. 21, 1984)
Photon is billed as an activity for the whole family (the ultimate Oedipal trip?) and is becoming the “bowling alleys of the 80’s.” In the States, Photon leagues have formed, battling it out on a weekly basis. Among the groups that have rented the Dallas Photon arena for their own private war are law firms, accounting offices, and Baptist and Methodist churches. Photon is open to children as young as 8 years old.
In January, 1985, Photon will open up in Rexdale, Ontario. Photon is “targetted” for other centres in Ontario as well as in Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta.
Photon must be opposed, and it must be shut down, say the organizers of the War Toys Boycott campaign. It is immoral for Photon’s owners to be making money by teaching that war is OK, fun, and something which leaves no scars. Wherever Photon opens its doors, it is the duty of the peace movement to slam them shut, and to forbid them to open again.
You can register your opposition to Photon by telephoning the head Canadian Office (416 — xxx-xxxx), or by writing a letter of protest to: Photon Canada, Ltd., 6807 Steeles, Rexdale, Ont M9V 4R9.
For further information on the Campaign Against Photon, contact the War Toys Boycott, c/o Alliance for Non-Violent Action, 9 Melbourne Ave., Toronto, Ont. M6K 1L1 xxx-xxxx. For those outside the Toronto area, please let us know if a Photon is starting up near you, so that we can co-ordinate efforts.
By Janina Barrett
Those of us working in the War Toy Boycott Campaign are often asked, Why a military war toy boycott? What has that really got to do with the peace issue?
We believe that the condoning of military toys in our society prepares children to accept aggression and violence as “approved” ways of dealing with conflicts. The Hasbro-Bradley G.I. Joe toy provides an excellent example. The G.I. Joe “action” toy (not doll ~ the toy industry says dolls are for girls — boys play with “action” or “fantasy” toys) was first introduced in 1964 and then retired in the mid-seventies.
It has been said that the reason for this decision was poor sales due to a lack of popularity in the pacifist/cleaning period during and after the Vietnam war conflict. HasbroBradley denies this and credits the decision to “cost” problems as the reason it was taken off the market.
However, G.I. Joe was reintroduced into the marketplace for the first time in seven years, in 1983, and is selling phenomenally well (10-12 million figures were sold in 1983, with a projected 1984 revenue of $125 million.)
Industry spokespeople attribute the revived growth in sales to the “changed mood” in the country. Alan Hassenfeld, Executive Vice-president of Hasbro-Bradley, dubbed “the marketer many credit, or blame, for almost singlehandedly reviving the military toy category” by the trade publication Advertising Age, has said that “America changed a great deal around the time of the Iran hostage crisis. People started having feelings of patriotism. They started thinking, if we want to be free maybe we’ll have to defend ourselves and what we believe.” It was at this time, he says, that Hasbro decided to bring back G.I. Joe.
Despite the fact that these toys raise very clear political issues, the industry defends them as a reflection of society. In fact, the Christmas after the Grenadian invasion HasbroBradley “air-lifted” 35 thousand of their toys into Grenada and you can be sure one of their best sellers, G.I. Joe “the freedom fighter against terrorism” was among them.
The Alliance for Non-Violent Action (ANVA) started a boycott against military toys last spring. Since then many peace, church, women and school groups have felt it was time for a concentrated campaign against the acceptance of war toys and all of their implications. One of those groups, the Cruise Missile Conversion Project (CMCP) decided to hire a co-ordinator for the Toronto area boycott, to work under the umbrella of the ANVA campaign through this Christmas.
Unfortunately, the ANVA campaign has run out of funds. This means there is no money to get badly needed broadsheets from the printer. or to put together either organizing or press kits in any number, all of which are essential to the effectiveness of this campaign.
Nevertheless, the Toronto area campaign has been picking up momentum. It was a presence in both the Peace Petition Caravan march and the Santa Claus Parade. The same group of individuals that participated in the parade last year made an appearance again this year. Dressed as clowns and carrying balloons, they handed out leaflets urging people not to buy military toys because “war is not a game.”
The Toronto campaign has been getting tremendous press, including an article in a major daily newspaper, representation on a local TV talk show entirely devoted to the issue, and many radio interviews, some local (CFNY, Q107) and some much farther away (Kelowna, BC; Palm Springs, Florida).
For the immediate future some literature, buttons and resource materials are still available, and leafletting outside the Bay complex (Bloor & Yonge) and the Eaton’s Centre (Dundas & Yonge) is planned for every Saturday from now until Christmas.
To obtain more information or to help with the boycott campaign, please call Janina Barrett at xxx-xxxx, or the CMCP office at xxx-xxxx, or write: War Toy Boycott Campaign, c/o 730 Bathurst St.. Toronto, Ont. M5W 2P6.
By Anne Hume
TORONTO — On an overcast November 3rd morning our delegation of thirteen Torontonians sat at a large table in the office of the Mayor of Volgograd, listening to his welcoming speech. The Mayor, Mr. V. I. Atopov, was flanked by a portrait of Lenin in inlaid wood, and a silver maquette of Mother Russia, whose famous statue crowns thc war memorial on Mamayev Hill.
Our group responded with warm thanks and the presentation of a letter of greeting and good wishes from Toronto’s Mayor Eggleton.
This moment was but one of a series of significant events during our eight-day stay in Volgograd, a city better known in the west as Stalingrad. This city was the site of a major turning point in World War II — in February 1943, the destruction of the Nazi eastern front after a 200-day siege which left the city levelled and smoking, with 40,000 civilians and nearly one million soldiers dead.
Two years of preparation had led up to this moment in the Mayor’s office and this week in Volgograd. Following the November 1982, civic election. in which 78.8% of Toronto voters had endorsed a call for efforts towards multilateral nuclear disarmament, a small group of city activists began meeting to consider ways of translating this vote into some kind of action.
After several meetings the group decided on a people-to-people overture to a Soviet city.and chose Volgograd for a number of reasons. There was a previous link with Toronto, when, in 1943, the city had collected thousands of dollars and thirty tons of clothing for the relief of Stalingrad. It was also a Soviet, rather than an Eastern bloc city, but not Moscow. Finally, this was a citv whose people understood the horrors of war, and who would have a powerful commitment never to let such carnage recur.
The idea was successfully tested on a larger group, and at a public meeting held in the fall of 1983, the Toronto/Volgograd Initiative was formally established, with a statement of purpose focussing on city-to-city links as a means of reducing global tensions.
We decided to invite one or two Volgograd citizens to Toronto to commemorate the 40th anniversary of a Toronto fund-raising and tag day for Stalingrad. A long letter describing the group and its aims and requesting two visitors was sent off in early January. 1984. The next month brought a highly successful, well-publicised visit to Toronto by retired General Alexandre Ovcharov, a hero of the battle of Stalingrad and Loudmila Kouznetsova, a chief administrator in Volgograd’s International Department of City Council (_TPC_, April 1984).
Lengthy discussions with Loudmila and Alexandre cleared the way for a return visit. Eight months later, despite lack of fund raising from city and federal governments, but with financial and moral support from a wide range of community groups in the city, we were in Volgograd.
It is hard to convey the warmth of our reception, from the moment when we were greeted in sunny Volgograd with bouquets of red roses from Loudmila, until our departure seven days later, when we said goodbye to some new friends.
It was clear from the start that our hosts knew we were at best a semiofficial delegation; but the red carpet was out, and both formal and informal activities — visits to schools, clinics, factories, a day-care centre, meeting with a group of people who studied and spoke English, a session with the Peace Committee, tours of the various war memorials, were charged with enthusiasm and appreciation.
We were charmed by the city — all new since the 1950s but rebuilt in 19th century style, and planned with wisdom and sensitivity — large areas of green space, comfortable boulevards, an imposing but elegant central square, our hotel on one edge, the classic Gorky theatre on another, and a promenade along the Volga banks that integrates the river with the city.
We had timed our visit to coincide with the 67 anniversary celebrations of the October Revolution, a holiday that was like a blend of Grey Cup, Thanksgiving and Remembrance Day. Our anxieties about militaristic demonstrations quickly subsided on the morning we stood with a crowd to watch half the city’s population parade by us in two great streams of about half a million people.
Certainly the soldiers led off, but they were cadets and.young recruits. There were no guns and no tanks. Jeeps followed, carrying war veterans, male and female, too frail now to walk, and behind them younger veterans marched, their medals glinting in the sun. Then came groups walking beside floats representing the city’s industry and trade union groups, school and athletic groups carrying balloons and multi-coloured banners.
We began spotting formal peace slogans, then handmade peace signs — doves, missiles broken in two, more and more of these and hordes of men, women and children, just like our peace marches only a thousandfold more. The skeptic could argue that these people were required to be there, but if it was mandatory, they were having a very good time.
Later that evening, after a gala dinner with the Mayor on his boat on the Volga, two of us sat in Loudmila’s cosy flat with her husband, her young son, Sergei, and her mother. We drank tea and watched TV coverage of the celebrations — Moscow’s Red Square, with Chernenko and cronies bundled against the chill, the whole scene bristling with military hardware. It felt surreal. Here in Loudmila’s living room after a day of joy and festivity was the familiar rendering of Soviet life — a cliche of military might clanking ominously across Red Square. This pleasant evening brought home with new force and clarity how blinkered and dangerously limited our view of the U.S.S.R. is.
Our group is home now, received by family, friends and various interested constituency groups who are excited to hear about our visit. It is sad that the discovery of such a simple truth — that the similarities between the peoples of our two cities far outweigh the differences, and that they fear war and want peace as fervently as we do — should so desperately need to be to told.
The “bottom line” question is inevitable: Yes, but what did you really achieve? It may be impossible to reach those who are convinced that we are dupes, propaganda vehicles and Commie-lovers. But we do know that the group has made close contact with some citizens of Volgograd, and has built the first span of a bridge. And we have a guarantee of continuing interaction beginning with a return delegation to Toronto in 1985.
Thirteen of us have had the experience of a lifetime, in being made so welcome by a group of people who know so clearly what really matters in life, having lived so near the edge.
We hope Torontonians will take them to their hearts as they did us. Then, who knows what might be possible!
Anne Hume is Co-Chairman, with Jim Houston, of Toronto/Volgograd.
By Tom Joyce
NEW YORK — Members of the Cruise Missile Conversion Project recently attended the 1985 Strategy and Planning Conference of the Mobilization for Survival (MfS) in New York City. Known as “the Mobe” in movement circles, MfS is a United States multi-issue network composed of 160 affiliates with a national office in New York City.
The Coalition is based on three clear platforms of zero nuclear weapons, ban” nuclear power and meet human needs and is in the process of formalizing its anti-intervention work with-a no military intervention plank.
The coalition contains a diversity of groups, ranging from the directaction oriented Livermore Action Group in California to strong multi-issue Mobes in New York and Boston to a section of the Florida nuclear freeze group.
CMCP, because of its interest in regional networking with likeminded groups in upstate New York (and more recently, Michigan), wanted to learn first-hand how the movement is planning to organize after the re-election of Ronald Reagan. In addition, they want to support MfS’ proposals for continued organizing of weapons facilities and for international communication and cooperation among disarmament groups.
There was one day of advanced organizing workshops and network meetings (weapons facilities, feminist, direct actioh, etc). This was followed by two days of discussion and decision-making regarding Mobe’s 1985 programme priorities.
The first level priorities are to continue the campaign against first strike nuclear weapons and to strengthen and intensify efforts against US intervention in Central America. MfS plans to become a part of the rapidly forming network which is planning direct actions in the case of significant escalations in Central America.
“Second level priorities are to concentrate on the Rainbow Coalition, the April mobilization in Washington, the connections between nuclear and conventional weaponry, the 40th anniversary of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, changing US policy on the Middle East, anti-apartheid work, international dis:ussion about the Soviet Union, and building Mobe affiliates.
The Canadian Peace Congress, in a statement issued on November 8, “called on the newly-elected Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to annul the Canada-US Weapons Testing Agreement signed by the previous Liberal government.”
The statement was issued in response to the announcement that the US Government has made six new requests under the umbrella weapons-testing pact with Canada, known as the CAN US Testing and Evaluation Agreement.
“If the new government under Mulroney wants to receive support from the broad and growing peace movement — it will need to do more than speak fine words of concern for world peace.”
“Mr. Mulroney will need to show through deeds that Canada will not participate in the spiralling arms race which will cripple a recovery in our economy.” .
Because jobs are the number one priority for the new Prime Minister, the statement continued, “he should realize that monies spent for military equipment will create fewer jobs than monies on health, education, social programs or anywhere else in the economy.”
October and November were extremely busy months for United Church peace workers. More than twenty peace workshops and worship services were held in various United Church congregations throughout Toronto Conference and we would like to share with you some of the insights and program suggestions that came out of those events.’
Lori Nero, of Rosedale United Church in Toronto, attended November’s United Church Peace Network general meeting on “The Christian and Non-Violence”, led by Len Desroches, a Christian peace activist. Lori offers this reflection on that meeting:
“Do you believe in obedience to the laws of our land? The atrocities of Hitler’s regime were those of a legally sanctioned German governmcnt. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was lawful.
“Len Desroches, guest speaker at our November 12 meeting in Toronto, defined non-violence as an active, risk-taking non-violent resistance to injustice and violence. His words provoked examination of our concepts of fear, power, anger and obedience and challenged us to really think about the role of the Church in a world ‘drowning in violence.’ Is it not our responsibility to cducate ourselves in the meaning of this term ‘non-violence’?
“The tradition of non-violence, including self-education, dialogue with others, demonstration of beliefs, non-cooperation and eivil disobedience, envelopes such figures as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus Christ himself. Are we living the love of our God?” .
A series of peace services and workshops took place in Halton Hills on October 21. The planning team at St. John’s United Chureh in Glen Williams and Georgetown came up with a very effective program suggestion which encouraged participants to take at least one small step for peace. Janet Duval of St. John’s in Georgetown calls this suggestion “Using Our Gifts”. During the worship service, the minister told the story entitled Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes. Following this, the offering plates were passed around but church members were not asked to put in any money. Rather, they were invited to take something out of the offering plates which, at that point, were filled with colourful paper cranes, balloons (not blown up) and hand-made bookmarks. Just before the service came to a close, participants were told the significance of their cranes, balloons or bookmarks. All those who had chosen cranes were to carry a message of peace by writing a letter to a politician, expressing their hopes that the nuclear threat would be a priority issue for the elected official. Those who had selected bookmarks were asked to read an article or a Dook on disarmament or to watch a television program that dealt with the nuclear issue. And finally, those with a balloon were expected to blow it up and give it to a child. Following this, they were to pray that that child would live a long and happy life in a world of peace and goodwill. After the service, therefore, everyone walked away with either a crane, a balloon or a bookmark — concrete reminders of the small but worthwhile tasks they were to carry out.
There are many other effective program ideas which are well worth mentioning but we are out of space; contact me for more information. Peace be with you this Christmas season.
Merry Christmas,
Joanne Clarke, Janet Duval and Lori Nero
Newsletter material should be submitted to me by the 15th of each month (Remember, however, that The Peace Calendar does not publish a January issue.)
Joanne Clarke, United Church Peace Network, Bathurst Street United Chureh, 736 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2R4. (416) xxx-xxxx.
Lynn Connell was the organizer of the two caravans which concluded the Peace Petition Caravan Campaign. She also joined with the eastbound caravan on its journey, and we asked her to write up her impressions of the journey. Here is her article, much abbreviated from the original. We’re sorry we couldn’t include everything.
WE STOOD TOGETHER IN a little circle on the steps of the Legislative Buildings in Victoria, where Mayor Peter Pollen enthusiasically kicked off the caravan with a presentation of 50,000 signatures collected from the Gulf Islands and Vancouver Island. Several hundred supporters cheered, as hundreds of colourful balloons were released into the blue skies, carrying their cargo of paper cranes folded by Island children. With the highest of hopes and the greatest of expectations, we were on our way!
I climbed into Mary Williamson’s Datsun and was confronted by a Thank you for not smoking sign welded to her glove compartment. My only thought was “Oh my gawd — three weeks across Canada on withdrawal!”
But we managed. Three vehicles, two non-smoking, with the smokers puffing up the rear.
OUR LITTLE PREORDAINED family was not, we soon discovered, what people expected to meet as they welcomed us into their homes across the country. Our range in age seemed to surprise them the most.
Representing Saltspring Island (where the PPCC idea originated) were retired war veteran Art Rumsay and his wife Lou, a social worker, grandparents of eight who donated their camper trailer as our official Caravan vehicle; Mary Williamson, also in her sixties, a writer and mother of two teenagers; and Louise Beijk; principal PPCC organizer of Saltspring Island who committed herself to travelling with us to Edmonton. From Duncan BC came war veteran Clarence White, grandfather of two, who decided to join “so that the media of my town would take special interest in this project;” Meg Bell, a landscaper and president of the Cowichan Bay Widow and Widowers Club who “jumped at the opportunity of travelling to Edmonton” after Clarence presented the schedule at a recent meeting; and myself, a mother of three teenagers who flew to Victoria from Toronto to help coordinate the route eastward.
In Saskatoon, children’s bus driver and part-time student Stephanie Sydiaha spontaneously joined us in our trek. And cabinetmaker Brennain Lloyd hopped aboard in North Bay.
THE WEATHER WAS WITH us in Vancouver — hot and balmy. A small reception at City Hall, including some words of encouragement from Alderwoman Libby Davies, folksinging, and the presentation of 25,000 signatures.
We left at 6:30 the next morning, pushing hard for a noonhour press conference in Penticton (1000 signatures) and through Okanagan Valley to Vernon for a large welcoming rally and presentation of 6000 signatures collected from Kamloops, Kelowna, Lumby and Vernon.
After an arduous drive through the vaulting snow-capped peaks of. the Rockies, we stepped out of our vehicles in Calgary to the blinding flash of camera bulbs and TV lights outside City Hall, where Mayor Ralph Klein applauded over 200 participating supporters. Before presenting us with traditional straw cowboy hats, he reminded the onlookers that “with this most important issue, it is your voice that can make a difference.” Peace spokesperson Jim Stanford ,expressed disappointment with “only 6500 signatures from this redneck town,” but emphasized that these small numbers were not indicative of a lack of Canadian support for the Campaign’s objectives, but of how few activists we had out there canvassing.
We were inclined to agree. Across the country we were told that between 70 and 90% of those people approached had signed the petition, but election campaigning had virtually halted petitioning efforts during the summer months.
In Red Deer, we were led down the main street by a cavalcade of decorated cars, with lights on and horns honking.
Several days (and towns) later, after the first of our two Thanksgiving dinners (Saskatoon, with a presentation by Joanna Miller and 6000 signatures), a larger such cavalcade greeted us in Regina, this time with a police escort. As we arrived at City Hall, nearby church bells chimed “Give Peace a Chance.” Another six thousand signatures.
On through Winnipeg (10,000 signatures and a standing ovation at a national Ukranian/Canadian conference) to Kenora. Here we had our first opportunity to rehash with local activists some suggestions that had been made in other towns along the way. As in other places, residents of Kenora (and nearby Emo) were exhilarated by the experience of working together on one national campaign. There was much talk of the need for a national coalition and a conference in the spring. Someone suggested a “twin cities” approach to some campaigns — with Saskatoon and Port Hope, for example, working together on the issue of uranium mining and refining.
We had our first day off in Thunder Bay, with wonderful hospitality, and 5000 more signatures to add to our bursting trailer. Two days later, we were in Sault Ste. Marie, where we were presented with a thirty-footlong Peace Mural, designed by local children, for us to deliver to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s three kids.
At a breakfast presentation in NWFZ Gravenhurst, Hiroshima survivor and leukemia victim Terry Coakley reached our hearts. “We must never allow what I experienced as a child in Hiroshima to happen again to anyone, regardless of what land they are from.”
The signature counts were becoming exciting once again. 40,000 had been collected in the Guelph and Kitchener-Waterloo area, and 15,000 were presented at a formal lunch at Hamilton City Hall. In Toronto, 45,000 were handed over at a lively reception at Nathan Phillips Square.
In Port Hope, author Farley Mowat congratulated the people across Canada who have taken the issue into the streets, saying “it is no longer enough to stay home and just worry about nuclear war.”
From there on in, it was a series of short stops in Peterborough, Marmora, Madoc (where hundreds of schoolchildren sang a peace hymn, their school bell chiming in the background), Tweed, Belleville, Napanee, Kingston, Carleton Place and Ottawa.
THROUGHOUT THE journey, the importance of individual activists became more and more apparent. In many small towns, individuals had achieved remarkable successes. Pastor Brian Rude of Wapella, Saskatchewan, for example, has singlehandedly introduced his town to the nuclear issue, and is planning to coordinate a group trip to Nicaragua in the summer of next year. After a service at Sf. John’s Lutheran Church, he organized a lunch for the caravaners. A farmer sitting next to me wrote out a cheque for $100, with tears in his eyes as he presented us with 300 signatures.
In Schreiber, Ontario, we had a pancake breakfast at the home of Eddy Ouillette, a one-man peace and environmental movement, who had collected 150 signatures. He insisted that we witness the incredible pollution of. chemicals gushing from the Kimberly-Clark Paper Mill into forest land just five miles from Lake Superior.
I can’t even begin to mention the hundreds of other inspiring individuals we met across the country who consistently demonstrated how much we’re capable of doing when we put our determination and energy behind a common objective.
THE TRIP WAS INSPIRING, exciting and enjoyable, but it was also gruelling. Driving all day, wondering if we were going to make it, dragging ourselves out of the vehicles armed with banners, fundraising buckets and literature, we were always met with incredible enthusiasm. Still, we were travelling at the speed limit, pushing hard to make deadlines, and always wishing we could stay longer at each stop.
Somewhere around Sudbury (where we held a well-attended press conference and received 8400. signatures), the relentless schedule began to take its toll, with devastating effects. Weak with the flu (which had been picking us off one-by-one) we held an intense discussion and debated whether or not to stop the caravan and go home.
Just as we were reaching the depths of despair and were ready to pack it all in, local organizer Dave Delauney gave us real encouragement — a fine meal with Vitamin C and stress pills for dessert. We finally agreed that the show must go on, regardless. Some of us attended a wonderful house party later.
OUR ARRIVAL IN OTTAWA did not signal an end to the gruelling schedule. After a tremendous welcome by PPCC national coordinators Michael Manolson and Beverlee Bell Armstrong, volunteers unloaded the petitions into a nearby hotel room for sorting. The national PPCC office was buzzing with organizers, telephones, press, sign painters, petitions and meetings in preparation for the three-day wind up.
October 20 was a day of speeches, ceremonies and a balloon release, followed, by the beginning of a 45-hour peace vigil.
As reported in last month’s issue of The Peace Calendar, October 21 was devoted to a meeting of activists from across Canada, ending with the establishment of an open planning committee to coordinate a proposed national conference of the peace movement.
On Monday, October 22, we rushed between meetings with Ed Broadbent, John Turner and Brian Mulroney. Afterwards, we held a press conference in the National Press Gallery, and presented the petitions to MPs from the three parties. Our job was finished. With tears in our eyes, we bid farewell on the steps of Parliament Hill, promising to reunite at the proposed national conference next year. Clarence White summed it up for the rest of us. “Sure, it was exhausting, but we are left with wonderful memories we will never forget.”
By Metta Spencer
Soviet officials are continuing their efforts to destroy the independent peace movement in their country. Members have been taken into custody repeatedly over the past several months and warned of stricter penalties for continuing to meet. Nicholai Khramov, one of the youngest members of the group’s steering committee, is nearly blind. Nevertheless, after he refused to be swayed by KGB threats, his medical deferment was reversed and he was drafted. Khramov insists that he would prefer jail to military life, and refused induction, whereupon he was again arrested. Conscientious objection is never permitted in his country, and it is illegal to promote the legitimacy of alternatives to military service. Khramov’s future therefore looks extremely bleak, and Canadian pacifists who wish to support him may do so by writing to the Soviet Embassy or t6 Mr. Chernenko.
Vladimir and Maria Fleischgakker, both 30-year-old engineers and key members of the Group for Trust, were expelled from the USSR to Vienna in mid-November after about three months of virtual house arrest. They have been sent to Rome for two or three months, and are expected to then immigrate to the United States, where four other members of their group also live in exile. Maria is now pregnant with her second child.
Last June I visited Maria Fleischgakker and her baby in the couple’s single room in Moscow. They were living with Vladimir’s parents in a small, dingy flat and getting by on very little money, having been fired from their professional jobs as soon as they became involved with the Group for Trust. Maria was producing a “peace magazine” at her typewriter and Vladimir was away at his part-time job as a concierge. His mother, a warm Jewish woman, sat by the crib cooing at her happy, naked baby granddaughter. Only at the mention of her children’s courage did her face darken. “He is my only son,” she said. “And what they are doing is very, very dangerous.”
Maria was more optimistic. The movement was growing, she said. Young people especially were interested, though often they preferred to organize their own peace groups instead of working as part of the Trust Group. Nothing fazed her. She had planted a peace garden with flower seeds sent from Western peace groups. It had been stomped on, but they would try again. They had collected signatures on a petition asking both superpowers to resume disarmament talks, and in a couple of hours had gathered 300 signatures before they were arrested. It is forbidden to collect petitions in the Soviet Union, but even after they were put into the police car, people kept reaching inside it to keep signing theirs, until they were taken away.
“Trust is not something that people can just decide to do,” Maria said in English. “It arises when the conditions have been created for it. That’s what we’re trying to do. Whenever you come in a spirit of good will and visit us, or other ordinary Soviet citizens, or even visit, the officials, you are helping to create the conditions for trust. Don’t just focus on the negative things that happen to us. I hope that you’ll spread the word about our economic conversion proposals, for example. We know that it won’t work just to lay off military people; jobs have to be created that will use some of the skills they have acquired in their work. It would be wonderful to develop joint economic projects that would enable people fiom the East and West to work together on the same job. We send our proposals to people in the government here. We will keep trying to share our ideas with them. Some of them, we know, are paying attention.”
Following the expulsion of the Fleischgakkers, many Canadian peace activists reacted with concern. The Project Ploughshares national Board of Directors, for example, noted these new repressions with disappointment. They passed a resolution affirming the right of people everywhere to participate in the process of working for peace, and invited their sponsors to make appropriate responses.
By Andrew Van Velzen and Ken Hancock
There is an interesting division within the peace movement. On one hand,-the perceived “leaders” of the movement are telling us that we should be giving Brian Mulroney the benefit of the doubt in matters of peace and disarmament. He is open, they say, to dialogue and public input, and meeting with him gives us a credibility we have not had before. (It gives him much more credibility — a fact of which he is well aware.) On the other hand, there is a growing awareness at the grass roots level that this is exactly the ruse it is intended to be. As he did all during the federal election, Mulroney is playing all sides of the game. He governs like a traditional liberal; yet he tells the Peace Petition Caravan Campaign organizers that there will be no change in the cruise testing agreements. Many activists are no longer happy with being sent home like interesting but wayward children who have been given a lesson in real politic.
And that is not all. We learn from a November 1, 1984 Toronto Star article that there is an entire shopping list of new US weapons to be tested in Canada. Many, such as the MK-82 laser guided bomb, the gator mines, and the A V-8B Marine Corps short take off and landing aircraft can be used in Europe and the Third World. The Star article quotes a Defense Department official’s statement that the weapons are “innocuous enough”, and are not “flashing lights” like the cruise missile. In other words the public will not become upset about testing these.
In fact, it appears that many do not feel upset about testing the cruise. If we can be told to take our petitions and go home without an escalation of resistance on our part, then, surely we deserve the cruise missile. We deserve it because we have not had the moral courage to act independently of state authority to stop a weapon system we know to be evil.
This is not a condemnation of the Peace Petition Caravan as a campaign. It is simply a reminder that it, and we, are being used to legitimize a set of policies which have already been decided, are not open to democratic and popular control, and are increasingly militaristic in their intent.
Indeed. one is reminded of the old fable of the emperor’s clothes. Mulroney wishes to cover his policies with a veneer of peace. He has no moral qualms about using us to accomplish this task. But stripped of this veneer, these policies look very ugly indeed.
One simply has to look at the publicly declared policy and their implications.
Mulroney has publicly stated a desire to support more closely the policies of the Reagan administration. This administration has produced CIA manuals with instructions on murder and assassination, and plans to build 17,000 new nuclear warheads. Both the External Affairs and Defense departments have said that they will want more US military contracts as a price for further weapons tests, which will increase inflation and unemployment in this country. More government spending will be taken up by militarism and less on social services. Why, one may ask; are we so accepting of this man?
Well, in some ways we are not. There is a growing awareness and anger, and a desire for deeper understanding of the issues at the grass roots level. But there is also a strong urge to rein in this potential, to deliver it politically safe and sound back to the state managers who have historically had such an important and frightening effect on the peace movement in Canada. So there will be a growing tension within the movement itself. It will be a struggle to move it forward politically.
Certainly one major obstacle in our way is the centrist-conservative nature of Canadian society itself. Mulroney’s success depended upon understanding this and exploiting it. He moved the Conservatives to a more nonideological, pragmatic position. We are a people who do not care for extremes in political life. The tradition of “quiet diplomacy” is a middle course. Mulroney will be a master at steering this middle course, while pushing us more and more to support US policies. The appointment of Stephen Lewis is an example of this. (Lewis has already said that one of his chief disagreements with government policy — cruise testing — is not a UN issue.)
In addition. the peace movement is itself a centrist force in Canadian political culture. Lacking a radical tradition to guide its understanding of the state, the economic order, various forms of social and political domination, and Canada’s role in US global policies, the Canadian peace movement is very susceptible to state control and manipulations. Consequently mythologies have developed which play an important role in containing us.
For example. the Canadian elite does not want to be independent of US control. For forty-five years they have consciously integrated us into US military and economic structures. In this role as client state we have, virtually no influence on US policies.
We were not consulted about the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam war, the A.B.M. controversy in the 1960s, or the invasion of Grenada. Nothing is more insulting than having Pierre Trudeau tell Mulroney not to be a lackey of US interests. What else has he done for the last sixteen years, but follow the Liberal tradition of supporting the United States military policy and their lead in economic institutions as the World Bank.
Finally, we face the most important task of actually becoming a peace movement. As of now. the political scope of our work has functioned essentially as a nuclear arms control unit of External Affairs. This is why the Defense Department can say there will be no real protest about testing these new weapons systems. This is why the “moral voice of the Tories”, Doug Roche, can say that “increased defense spending is the price we have to pay to bring us down from the nuclear mountain,” and why he gets support from many sections of the peace movement when he says it.
Taking a clear position against the war machine and all of its manifestations will move us outside of the control of the state apparatus and force us to search for form~ of non-violent direct actions which till now have been almost totally absent from our work.
Other than in times of crisis, Canadians do not tend to join political movements in large numbers. The crisis of the cruise is over. That it will continue to be tested without massive resistance says a great deal about the weaknesses of our work up until now. This is a time to evaluate that work and build the base of the movement that is already there. A greater understanding of the issues, and a widening of the tactics used in a movement-wide manner are both needed at this time. We suggest three steps to be taken in the future. These could be included in the issues to be discussed and debated at the national gathering in the spring of 1985.
And finally let us take our demands for change in policy, and our timetable to accomplish it, to Ottawa.
If we are not treated like responsible human beings, then we will begin locally, converging on Ottawa in a campaign of non-violent non co-operation till our legitimate demands are met. We should never assume that the government has the “right” to govern us. A government which continues to pursue policies which threaten the planet is one which has lost the moral authority to govern.
These are ideas for our future work together. That future will require new ideas and new forms of activism. In our view, it must begin with giving the Canadian people the benefit of intelligence, and the Mulroney government the scepticism it deserves.
The CANDIS office has moved to the lower floor of 10 Trinity Square, Toronto M5G 1B1. This building is on the N-E corner behind the Church of The Holy Trinity at the Eaton Centre. Our new phone number is (416) xxx-xxxx. (Please note we are unable to receive collect or return long distance calls at present). The office is currently open Monday to Friday 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Volunteers are happy to assist you and can provide information on nuclear arms and the disarmament movement in Canada. Our clipping file, reference library and information displays are now available for use by the general public.
Updated fact sheets and an annotated bibliography are wonderful examples of the type of material our capable volunteers have developed.
We answer requests as promptly and thoroughly as we can!
We are always in need of volunteers. We focus on finding accurate information for people, and if you’ve ever thought the work of teachers and librarians is exciting, you would feel right at home at CANDlS! Call Brenda Spencer, the office manager, if you can spare any amount of time.
On October 6, 1961, the Canadian Committee for the Control of Radiation Hazards (later to become the Canadian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) delivered to then Prime Minister John Diefenbaker a petition with 142,000 signatures demanding that Canada not acquire nuclear weapons of any kind.
Consider the chilly climate of the first Cold War of the 1950s-60s. Consider also that the peace movement of that day did not have the institutional support of the trade unions and churches as is the case today. Set in this context, the 1961 petition, as well as what happened afterwards politically and movement-wise, was a remarkable achievement. In comparison, what was achieved by the Peace Petition Caravan twenty-three years later (with substantial institutional support, important funding, and in a climate far more responsive to the peace movement) should be considered a failure. If the PPCC received the enthusiastic support of the peace movement in Canada it should have obtained a minimum of 1 million signatures. It did not receive this support. What went wrong?
Space does not permit a detailed analysis, but one observation is obvious. Both in its social and political objectives, as well as its organizational forms, the Canadian peace movement is on the whole out of step with the international non-aligned peace movement. There is no doubt that we have seen a numerical increase in the margins of the peace movement in Canada, but a parallel political and organizational sophistication has not taken place since the 1960s.
What my studies of the international nonaligned peace movement show is that, in the case of the European and Japanese movements, there has been both a qualitative and quantitative advance over its past. There is, for instance, considerably more reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the movement as such. A social movement has longevity to the extent that it is self-conscious.
In English-speaking Canada a new set of mistakes are about to be committed. There is much talk about a national organization, a national ‘co-ordinating comittee.’ We do not need such creatures. And certainly the majority peace movement in Quebec will not be part of such a formation. What we do need is an annual conference of activists who discuss and undertake common educational and movement-building actions together.
There are several models that can be used for such a conference, the most important being that of the annual END conferences. Within a clearly non-aligned framework, European activists meet to educate themselves, evaluate, and undertake common actions, without binding policy resolutions. One truism bears repetition in Canada, howeyer. We are part of an international movement.
Dimitri Roussopoulos
Editor, Our Generation
Montreal, PQ
The October 20 Walk for Peace in Toronto was incredibly disappointing in respect to the totality of its anti-Americanism.
1 walked the length of the parade four times to make sure I saw as many banners and placards as possible. Not one banner or placard made even the slightest reference to the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the possession of the other superpower, a totalitarian dictatorship.
This omission by the Toronto peace movement is appalling1y irresponsible. It could be argued that this parade referred specifically to the Peace Petition Caravan’s proposals concerning the cruise missile in the context of Canada; therefore, any reference to Soviet nukes was peripheral to this primary concern.
If this was the case, then what was the purpose of huge banners denouncing NATO exclusively, or U.S. involvement in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada or elsewhere? The presence of over 100,000 combat troops, thousands of jet fighters, helicopter gunships, tanks and heavy artillery commiting genocide in Afghanistan must also be peripheral.
We know that an interview survey of the peace movement indicated there was equal concern about US and USSR nukes. In addition, rally speakers virtually always refer to both superpowers. But these things don’t show in newspaper photos or on tv pictures.
The USSR recently criticized Reagan, saying they wanted real peace gestures and not just token sugar-coated words. This Soviet criticism can apply to the Toronto peace movement; real gestures such as placards and banners denouncing Soviet nukes and militarism would give substance and visual expression to the mere words of the peace movement.
Wally Keeler
People’s Republic of Poetry
Cobourg, On.
The article by David Ramsay on Remembrance Day and a ‘Victims of War’ Day (TPC, October 1984) prompts me to share a Winnipeg experience which I believe has merit for November 11 peace activities.
The Canadian peace movement has matured in recognition of November 11 as an armistice observance. The desire to commemorate those who died (and suffered) in the “War to End All Wars” carries an implicit vow that they should not have died in vain.
What we have learned in Winnipeg was not to go into the regular Nov. 11 events with peaceful slogans, but with quiet respect and wearing (alongside any other buttons) a poppy.
What evolved in Winnipeg was a silent vigil for peace, at the cenotaph immediately following the wreath-laying and gun salutes. Some peace people attended the regular cenotaph service and of course entered into the two minute silence.
As the vets, honourary mothers and politicians left by car and the young soldiers climbed into buses — all heading for the warmth of the auditorium service — we stayed put, continuing the respectful moment of silence for an hour. Many more peace people came to join at this time. People spoke from the silence about peace concerns today. A few veterans who dislike the official events, joined ours with a feeling that here was something which truly honoured those killed, in spirit and in commitment to ending war today: not by fighting but peace through peace.
I would be interested in further discussion and exploration of this theme, perhaps arising out of this year’s Disarmament Week and November 11 experiences.
Let’s wear poppies on August 6 too.
Bill Curry
Wynyard, Sk
Bert Keser’s criticism (TPC, October 1984) of my earlier article on national coordination of Canadian disarmament campaigns seriously distorts both my own views and those of the End the Arms Race coalition.
Keser states that “a central weakness in the otherwise national campaign against cruise testing was the lack of pariticpation by Vancouver’s End the Arms Race coalition in two of three coast-to-coast actions.” In fact, EAR conducted a very active and organizationally successful ‘Refuse the Cruise’ campaign in Vancouver. Many other Canadian cities did likewise. However, the only “coast-to-coast” action that EAR was invited to, and did participate in, was the October 22, 1983, demonstrations. I don’t know of the other “actions” Keser. refers to, but I doubt they were coast-to-coast, if we on the West coast did not know of them.
Keser goes on to describe the PPCC as “an artificial campaign thrust upon the Canadian peace movement from above” and the Peace Institute as “irrelevant to the Canadian peace movement.” He then labels my argument as “specious” that these are two examples of the need for some type of national coordination. Yet, it is only through some type of national coordination that we can ensure that national campaigns such as the PPCC are not thrust upon us from above, but rather are designed and carried out by grassroots disarmament organizations from across the country. Also, a strong and united response to the Peace Institute, again made possible by some type of national coordination, may have made it more relevant to our efforts by including more board members, such as Joanna Miller, who are in touch with the grassroots.
Keser finds “most distasteful” my supposed call for national spokespersons for the Canadian peace movement. Yet in my article, I specifically stated “spokespersons cannot speak for the movement as a whole, they can only speak for specific campaigns and projects.” Since the media cannot speak to everyone, it is important that the organizations involved in a campaign agree on a set of spokespersons that are representative of region, gender and sector.
Keser’s most serious charge is of the “implicit pro-Sovietism” of End the Arms Race, as demonstrated by the failure of that organization to pass a resolution put forward by its main founder, Joseph Roberts, at a 1983 EAR general meeting. The defeated resolution reads as follows: “The steering committee of End the Arms Race believes that both superpowers share the responsibility for the current state of affairs regarding the nuclear arms race.” This statement by Keser is incorrect and misleading on several points.
First, Joseph Roberts is not the “main founder” of EAR. EAR was formed by the historical coming together of a large number of organizations in Vancouver, and no single individual could possibly claim to be its “main founder.”
Secondly, the resolution Keser describes was not defeated. Joseph Roberts’ motion came at the end of a very long steering committee meeting on Aug. 8, 1983, during which we had dealt at length with the very ambitious second stage of our Refuse the Cruise campaign, which we were just about to launch. When Joseph’s motion was introduced, the discussion quickly expanded into the broader question of EAR policy in general. Because of the obvious importance of a discussion of this nature, and because it was already late, it was agreed, with very close to unanimity, to set up a full-day meeting devoted solely to a comprehensive discussion of EAR policy, and to table Joseph’s motion until then.
This full day of EAR policy discussion did take place on Nov. S, 1983. Agreement was reached that EAR’s overall goal is to end the arms race, abolish all nuclear weapons, and divert spending from the military to the funding of human needs. We also agreed that the major efforts of EAR should be on changing Canadian policy to stop cruise missile testing, to make Canada a NWFZ, and to support a bilateral freeze.
These policies form the basis of unity for the 190 very diverse organizations forming the End the Arms Race coalition. As a coalition, we limit our work to those issues on which we all agree; and pursue the goals and objectives on which we differ outside of the coalition. There is no room in the policies of EAR for implicit or explicit pro-Sovietism or anti-Sovietism, pro-Americanism or anti-Americanism; as any of these policies would not have the support of all of our endorsing organizations. The charge that EAR is “pro-Soviet” is a cheap slur, having no substance and repudiated by the massive public support the people of Vancouver have given to the campaigns and events organized by EAR.
One should be very cautious about criticizing a peace group or coalition in another city. Developing a strong and healthy municipal coalition in any city is a very difficult and ongoing challenge, and there are always problems and difficulties. It is easy for someone interjecting into local matters in another city to not be fully aware of the complexities of a given situation, and thus make comments that are uninformed or misinformed. Such comments, especially when they contain inaccurate criticisms and charges, only serve to diminish the goodwill and cooperation that we should be striving towards.
Finally, I would like to reaffirm both End the Arms Race’s and my own desire to find effective means of national coordination for major Canadian disarmament campaigns. We must allow the tremendous diversity in size, structure, goals and policies of Canadian disarmament-supporting organizations to be a strength, not a weakness. Let us agree to cooperate and work together on those issues on which we all agree; and to work separately on those about which we differ. We do not need to set up bureaucracies or hierarchical structures; we just need ways of working together effectively. We need constructive, not destructive, dialogue on how we can best achieve this. I would suggest that the interesting and realistic proposal by Kim Killeen for a decentralized coalition, included in the recent mailing of the ‘National Coalition Correspondence Network’, would be an excellent starting point for our discussions.
Gary Marchant
Vancouver. B.C.
I’d like to comment on Bert Keser’s letter in the October issue of The Peace Calendar.
I think that Bert hits a nail on the head when he says that we don’t want either superpower but to construct a world of freedom for everyone.
The ideologues of both Marxist Left and Captitalist Right have both become so bought into dualistic thinking that they literally can’t see that the world is not divided into All-Good and All-Evil. There are dozens of options outside of the opposition between these two great powers, many of which lead to greater freedom and much less fear.
I see the job of the peace movement as being the delegitimization of both Great Powers undermining, on all fronts, the legitimacy of these systems of fear and exploitation. The power to commit mass murder via nuclear war is only a small step removed from the power to create gulags, native reserves, prisons, armies, police forces, authoritarian schools — all powers resting on our fearful acceptance of the “right” of the governments to act for us.
Before I close, I’d like to add to the debate on a national peace organization. It’s my humble opinion that a bureaucratic structure piled atop the grass roots organizations would pretend to speak for the movement as a whole — a prime target for ambition. The Communists would love such an organization because they’d have no trouble taking it over, because it would just be a shell, rather than a real living organism, and then they could proclaim themselves the “leaders” of the peace movement.
The collapse of the national peace organization a year or so later would make efforts to build a new one, when it really might be necessary, much more difficult.
Sam Wagar
Lake St. Peter
P.S. Thanks for sending me the Peace calendar. Good work, keep it up!
Bert Keser’s attempt (TPC, October 1984) to portray the Canadian peace movement as a large number of people with irreconcilable differences is ridiculous. If what he says was true, there would be no peace movement. Must we agree with each other on every issue in order to work together on halting the nuclear arms race? 1, for one, believe that we do share a basic perspective, and that we must be able to cooperate, if we ever hope to succeed.
Keser’s organization (Against Cruise Testing) has organized more demonstrations than most of us even participated in. Surely he has noticed that people who feel that nuclear power is dangerous can join with those who believe that nuclear power is a safe and inexpensive source of energy. Surely it has not escaped his attention that peaceniks who believe in non-alignment can walk side-by-side with peaceniks from the Communist Party of Canada.
Keser seems to believe that there is enough of a basis for unity in the peace movement to justify ACT’s focus on organizing public demonstrations. Why does he feel that these “fundamental differences” will prevent this same peace movement from cooperating more fully — on a national scale?
W. Spencer
Toronto, On.
By Zhores A. Medvedev. New York: Random House, 1979. $2.95.
Reviewed by Matthew Clark
Zhores Medvedev is a Soviet biochemist and political dissident now living in London, England. He came to write Nuclear Disaster in the Urals almost by accident: in 1976, in an article about the role of scientists in the dissident movement, he happened to mention “the nuclear disaster in the Urals which had occurred in 1957 or 1958. This nuclear accident had contaminated more than a thousand square kilometres in the Southern Urals with radioactive waste from nuclear reactors and had caused the deaths of several hundred persons. Thousands had been evacuated and hospitalized, and an extensive area in an industrially developed region had become a danger zone and would remain so for decades.”
To Medvedev’s surprise, his offhand description of this disaster raised a storm of controversy. The accident, which had never been acknowledged by the Soviet government, was unknown in the West (except to the intelligence agencies), and after Medvedev’s article appeared, a number of Western experts stated that such an accident involving nuclear waste was technically impossible. US intelligence sources admitted knowing about some sort of accident, but they claimed that it involved a reactor that went out of control rather than nuclear waste; they also claimed that the damage from the accident was not so extensive as Medvedev’s account suggested.
Medvedev’s account was supported, however, in a letter to the Jerusalem Post, written by Prof. Lev Tumerman, an emigré from the USSR, who had travelled through the area contaminated by the accident. Tumerman saw road signs which “warned drivers not to stop for the next 30 kilometres and to drive through at maximum speed. On both sides of the road as far as one could see the land was ‘dead’: no villages, no towns, only the chimneys of destroyed houses, no cultivated fields or pastures, no herds, no people… nothing.” According to Tumerman, “an enormous area, some hundreds of square kilometres, had been laid waste, rendered useless and unproductive for a very long time, tens or perhaps hundreds of years.”
Medvedev himself had first learned of the disaster in 1958, when he was offered a position as head of a laboratory conducting research on the effects of radioactive contamination in the region of the accident. He declined, because of the secret nature of the research: he would not have been able to publish any of his findings, and he would not have been allowed to meet or correspond with foreigners or to travel abroad. But other scientists whom he knew did take research positions in the area. “The sudden appearance of a vast natural territory contaminated by radioactivity provided thousands of researchers with totally new opportunities and unique prospects such as had never existed in any country.”
For many years, the scientists who were working in the contaminated area were not allowed to publish. In 1966, however, restrictions were somewhat eased and articles by these scientists began to appear in scientific journals, with certain crucial details omitted: “the locations where this work was carried out, the causes of the radioactive contamination, the size of the total area … Reports of artificial experiments of course included such information.
By tracking down the names of particular researchers and by noting the omission of experimental detail and method, Medvedev was able to gather a large group of articles which concerned the consequences of this accident, though the connection was in no case admitted. By critically examining these articles, he was able to deduce certain facts about the accident — its approximate date, location, severity, and geographical extent. Much, of course, could not be deduced for example, the number of human casualties — though there must have been hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries.
Most of the book is unavoidably somewhat technical, though expert knowledge is never essential to take it in. Some will find the technical detail fascinating, others will find it boring, but it is necessary to prove Medvedev’s case. It is also interesting to see just how much can be deduced despite censorship.
The Soviets were not the only government keeping information about the disaster secret. Shortly after Medvedev’s article appeared, the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, applied to the US government, under the Freedom of Information Act, for any documents about the accident. Some of the documents were classified and were not released, and others which were released were edited down to a sentence or two. But the documents clearly show that the US government knew about the disaster shortly after it occurred; none of their information was made public, however, until it was applied for, almost twenty years after the accident. Medvedev believes that the US government did not want the public to know about any disaster involving nuclear waste.
Medvedev makes his own position clear: “Above all, my aim has been to help those who are concerned with stopping the nuclear contamination of the environment in which humanity must be able to live for millions of years to come Politicians plan in terms of two or three decades when they make their decisions. Nuclear energy specialists sometimes weigh their decisions in terms of several centuries. Biologists and geneticists, among whom I count myself, think about the future from the point of view of evolution, constructing future models with reference to millions of generations.
The following list was compiled by Bernadette Czarnecki of CANDIS, with the assistance and support of the Canadian Friends Service Committee, Parents for Proce and Voice of Women.
Readers should be able to obtain all of the books listed through the library system, but,some books may be out of print, so bookstores may carry only selected titles.
By Wally Keeler
A new magazine specializing in the most recent activities of the independent peace movement in the USSR is being published by Sergei Batovrin, one of the founders of the “Group to Establish Trust Between the USSR and USA,” now its foreign representative iiving in New York City.
Batovrin is presently living with his wife, child and mother in an apartment in the Cloisters area of upper Manhattan, since his involuntary exile from the USSR for his assorted peace activities. The editorial board consists of other members of the Trust Group who have been sent into exile. Batovrin’s apartment is now the chief production office for Return Address: MOSCOW.
The magazine is a first-hand information bulletin by Soviet peace activists, which by-passes the editing and slants of report by Western journalists. It includes information concerning the fates of individual Soviet disarmament activists; concerning the historic formation and propaganda techniques of the official Soviet Peace Committee; concerning the positive proposals of multilateral exchanges and activities among independent peace groups in the East and the West.
The magazine is not an anti-Soviet diatribe. Nevertheless, it confronts us with the fact that the KGB (aided by elements of the Soviet Peace Committe) has utilized psychiatric terrorism, drug torture, concentration camp imprisonment and unrelenting harassment to destroy the Group’s peace activities.
In spite of this formidable oppression, there is much that Western peace activists can do to alleviate the situation of our brothers and sisters of peace-conscience on the other side.
It is not just a matter of saving individuals from fates alien to peace activists here.
Peace is too important to leave just to politicians, whatever their stripe: communist, capitalist, totalitarian, democratic. The formula must also include grass roots people-to-people dialogue, especially Western people to Eastern people and vice versa.
The dialogue formula must include all elements: politician-to-politician, people-to-politician and people-to-people. Return Address: MOSCOW will provide the basic elements and information to assist the broadening of the “peace front.”
There is much that various elements of the Western peace movement can learn from this unique publication. It is a healthy supplement to the abundance of peace information proliferated by our own presses. It is time we listen to the experience and proposals of others. There is much in this publication that will challenge: some of our basic assumptions concerning the USSR and this challenge is healthy.
Subscriptions to Return Address: MOSCOW are available for $18.00 per year. Address is Apt 5B, 1793 Riverside Drive, NY NY 10034, USA.
Editors’ note: How should the peace movement respond to official Soviet repression of independent peace activists? Opinions on this matter vary. not only among Western activists, but even within the groups that bear the brunt of that repression. This is a review o.f a publication by Sergei Batovrin. one of the exiled members of the Moscow Group for Trust. Other members of his group. on the other hand, take a more conciliatory approach and several have privately expressed some reservations about the tone of his publication.
Edited by Mary Vrantsidis