Continue the campaign against Euromissiles sistance because of the overall political situation. It in no way reflects what is going on at the base of the anti-missiles has been the spectacular turnabout in the of the German Social
The week October 22-30 saw the biggest internationally co-ordinated anti-war mobilisations for a long time.
5 million people took to the streets of the capital
Nearly cities and major towns in Europe to oppose the imminent installation of Nato missiles.
This huge wave of anti-war protests is substantially more developed than autumn
1981 in its level of international co-ordination and in its breadth and capacity for mobilisation in each country.
In the
Netherlands
(550,000), Belgium (400,000), Britain (400,000), Italy
(500,000) and particularly in West Germany (1.5 million throughout the country), the size of the demonstrations was unprecedented in recent history.
In total, the figures indicate an increase of 50 per cent over the 1982 anti-Reagan
A force not only more numerous, but better organised and more mobilisations.
combative than ever.
In addition to this numerical vance, the movement against the installation of the Nato nuclear missiles obviously put its apparent "hibernation' between 1981 and 1983 to good use in better organising itself.
First of all, it has clearly become more structured, tries where the missiles will be deployed sprung up; in Britain based on the long tradition of the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament (CND), in Holland through
Ecumenical
(IKV), in Belgium by the Committees
Against Cruise Missiles (KKN)
West Germany around a national coordination of the mobilising committees of the peace movement.
Over the last two years these committees have carried consistent information and propaganda work among working people.
It was the activists from these organisations who succeeded in bringing thousands of people to the October 1983 demonstrations, which seemed rather disorganised and easy going. This has nothing to do with a one-off united action by a coalition of reformist parties pulling the
A STRUCTURED MOVEMENT
Secondly, it should be noted that this structure the movement and carry out regular activities is directly linked to new political skills that go well beyond those of the traditional pacifist
The leaderships of these movements have generally held fast in their unconditional rejection of the deployment of
Nato's new nuclear missiles.
cutstanding feature of the last two years, above and beyond the toing and froing, questioning, fights that are indispensable for clarify-
International Viewpoint 28 November 1983 ing and maintaining such an orientation
Neither imperialist pressure, nor the advocates of the "lesser evil', threats and promises of Yuri Andropov, have got the better of the anti-missiles movement's political determination to hold to its course of mass mobilisations around a clear, simple and understandable unconditional opposition to the Nato missiles.
The movement's activity, based on a limited unilateralism, expressed in the
La unilateral first step towards general disarmament', is the product of the masses' experience of the generalised war drive and the continuing deadlock in the negotiations on disarmament between the American imperialists and the Soviet bureaucrats - both equally interested in maintaining the political and social status quo in the world activists often come from the Christian milieu, or are 'children of 68 disillusioned by the defeats of the work. ers mobilisations in Portugal, Spain and
They are often firmly oriented towards the Third World and revolutionary advances there and profoundly anti-imperialist, but this layer is also sensitive to the question of the democratic oppositions in Eastern Europe and sympathetic to Solidarnosc in Poland.
These activists form a political force, relatively autonomous from the traditional reformist leaderships, whose dynamism, orientation and ability to be consistently active over a long period have helped to modify the political course of several of the big social-democratic parties.
The social-democratic parties in question, while opposed to the anti-missiles movement, decided under the impact of the movement's 1981 successes and continuing pressure, to try and co-opt it for their own tactical reasons by shifting their public positions on the Euromissiles.
At the moment, the eager warrior Francois Mitterrand, who was frostily re-
Democratic Party (SPD). It was the SPD, Schmidt, that called for the installation new missiles in the first place, Nato discussions in 1979, when the Nato 'two-track' decision was
Of course, no credit can be given to these social-democratic leaderships. are devoted agents of American and European imperialism. Moreover, it has to be considered that the change in their attitude is not unrelated to the fact that they have been freed of governmental responsibility. Nonetheless, their shift is an indication of the extent of the political change on the question of the Euromissiles that has taken place since 1981.
The national SPD congress will discuss the question of the missiles again in De-
In the regional congresses of various states (Lander) a very large majority has already come out in opposition to their installation.
In the Netherlands, the main social-democratic leader, Joop den Uyl, heckled and booed during the 1981 rally, was greeted with applause this time. ever, for that he had to adopt the position of the KKN
The Flemish Socialist Party in Belgium has campaigned in support of the unilatarguments of the VAKA. Socialist Party, absent and silent in the 1981 demonstration, rallied to the 1983 demonstration, although it did so on the basis of bilateral
Nevertheless, this halfsupport for the anti-missiles movement provoked the immediate resig nation of the parliamentary deputy Simonet (former EEC Commissioner) representative of the Atlantic Alliance tradition within the SP and inheritor of the line of Paul-Henri Spaak, secretary of Nato from 1957 to 1961.
THE WORKERS MOVEMENT AND THE FIGHT AGAINST THE MISSILES
All these developments in the antiwar movement have begun to influence the organised working class. been helped by working-class resistance austerity policies of the bour geoisie, and the installation of homogenous, hard-nosed bourgeois governments
See International Viewpoint No 38, 15
in the key European countries affected by the installation of the missiles: Britain, the Netherlands, West Germany and
Belgium.
Thus, for the first time the Deutsche
Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB), West Germany's powerful trade-union confederation, with 8.5 million members, organised a five-minute warning strike throughout the country on October 5, in which 4 million workers took part. (1) This was a symbolic act, but its impact was colossal in West Germany itself and in the neighbouring countries.
In the Netherlands the trade-union federation (FNV —Federatie Nederlandse
Vakbeweging) which organises the vast majority of workers played a pivotal role in the October mobilisation. It carried out extensive propaganda activities in the workplaces, and took its responsibilities as part of the organising committee for the demonstration.
The two trade-union federations in
Belgium, the Socialist-led General Labour
Federation of Belgium (FGTB) and the Catholic Confederation Trade Unions (CSC) provided part of the organising structure for the anti-missiles demonstration of October 23.
Immediately after this demonstration the FGTB called a general strike of 15 minutes for November 18, the day of the parliamentary debate on this question. The powerful Catholic metal workers federation added its name to this call although the cross-sectoral leadership of the CSC seemed to want to block this action.
Despite its limited nature, and its lateness, this turn by the unions represents a breakthrough for workers methods of struggle in the fight against the new missiles. The dynamic of these methods in the overall political struggle and on workers consciousness is well known.
This is only a modest beginning, both compared to what is at stake in this struggle, and to the anti-militarist tradition that animated the workers movement of yesteryear. continues and is reflected in the union congresses and in new workers actions, it will represent a major political turn.
This political turn is starting now, because the continuing mass activity is creating a situation in which militant initiatives can flourish, strengthening and deepening the movement overall. DGB's action cannot be explained in any other way, nor can the unremitting struggle of the 'Greenham Common Women against Cruise, or strikes and demonstrations in Belgium, in which tens of thousands of young people have taken part — to give just a few examples. These partial struggles, backed up by the whole movement, open up important perspectives.
However, this political evolution is also expressed in the level of consciousness of the masses who have mobilised. The mass anti-war movement has taken time to free itself from the position of calling for negotiated bilateral disarm14 ament. In fact, this stance derived from the Yalta compromise and the Cold War period, and it is vehemently defended within the movement and Eurocommunist Communist parties.
It is of course tiges of this old bilateralist position can still be found in the movement's unitedfront platforms. It is also true that those who still hold to the perspective of a solution negotiated at Geneva play active role in the leadership of the antiby no means insulated against the temptation to seek a 'way out', a 'tangible result', by linking the demand for unilateral disarmament to some sort of European diplomatic con-
However, the conscious defence of a bilateral disarmament by openly reformist political parties and currents should not be confused with the new consciousness of the masses who mobilise against the missiles.
Given the imminent installation of the Nato missiles, the unconditional rejection. of their deployment has made enormous strides in the consciousness of the peace demonstrators. The placards and banners showed this, as well as the opinion polls.
In fact, whatever the precise political opinions of the mass of these millions of demonstrators politics in general, one thing is certain. They do not want these missiles in their countries. And they are prepared to mobilise and act as a result of that. In this sense, all these demonstrations have an objective dynamic towards demanding the unilateral disarmament of the capitalist countries.
The opposition to the Soviet SS20s by the majority of those on the demonstrations comes more in fact from the formal demand for equal treatment for all parties than from mistrust of the Kremlin's politics overall, that is, from the sort of anti-Communism typical of the Cold
The Kremlin bureaucracy's announcement, on the eve of the October demonstrations, of the already longstanding presence of Soviet missiles in the German Democratic Republic and in Czechoslovakia thus appeared as a deliberate provocation, and a stab in the back for the Western European peace movements. The threats of deploying new Soviet missiles in these countries, as well as the organisation of a 300,000-strong demonstration in Prague by the official peace movement in favour of the deployment of SS20s, showed once again the counter-revolutionary role of the Eastern bureaucracies.
THE EFFECTS OF
THE ANTI-MISSILES MOVEMENT
October 1983 constituted a victory for the European proletariat against its own imperialist bourgeoisie, in the sense that a real chance exists to force a breach in an essential aspect of Ronald Reagan's wardrive. The level of anti-war mobili-
Demonstrators formed a 65-mile long human chain sation is not at the point where the movement has just reached its peak, and from now on can only decline and fragment in a multitude of isolated actions.
This movement has the political and organisational capital that would enable it to inflict a real defeat on imperialism on the Euromissiles question.
It has to take stock of its potentialities and its problems, in order to prepare for a new, concerted battle, one that will this time demand both an understanding of how to mobilise the masses and an adequate political line.
In fact, Reagan has to push through the installation of the missiles at any cost. This is both a military and political necessity. It flows from the overall imperialist offensive, which has several aspects: counter-revolutionary actions in the • International Viewpoint 28 November 1983
near Stuttgart (DR) Third World, strengthening the imperialist camp through Nato, and pursuing austerity policies in the imperialist countries themselves. Imperialism must achieve this end, although the vast majority of the peoples of Europe are opposed to it. Thus, the European bourgeoisies, who are supposed to implement this policy directly and openly, find themselves in difficulty.
On the very day after the Brussels demonstration, the Flemish Christian Social Party (CVP) was forced to ask for a parliamentary debate, even though this would be full of pitfalls for themselves, in order to freeze its own contradictions on the question of the Euromissiles. For the bourgeoisie, the parliamentary democratic system is a real obstacle to pushing through a decision when public International Viewpoint 28 November 1983 opinion' is clearly hostile to its militarist projects. They need not only to safecredibility of this system. How, in fact, are they going to explain that although 80 per cent of the population is opposed to a decision, parliament can, nevertheless, impose it?
There is also another problem. The bourgeois parties, which are only groupof well-known figures or 'management teams' at municipal or national carry out Reagan's policies, following his methods. It is not at all the same for the populist or cross-class bourgeois parties that have deep organisational roots in the petty bourgeoisie and working population, particularly through the broad social movements or trade unions. This goes particularly for the Christian Democrats in certain countries.
In such countries, the alignment with Reagan's policies is not only breaking up the longstanding socio-political consensus established by the bourgeois governments. It is also setting in motion a process that will tend in the longterm to destabilise the historic links between the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeois and popular layers, and which will have some immediate effects.
The anti-missiles movement must be built on the basis of a strategy that can lead it to victory. 22-30 week of action, several bourgeois governments are in danger of a severe crisis that could put into question the deployment of the Nato missiles.
Even if these governments clear this first hurdle for example by getting a formal vote for deployment, it is a long way from a vote in favour in parliament or the council of ministers, to actually deploying the missiles. This is particularly true when such governments face such a powerful anti-war movement and one so ready to mobilise again at the first alarm.
From now on everything depends on what the anti-war movement does. debate is open more or less everywhere. A political fight must be waged within the movement around questions:
First of all, there is the question or the movement's objective. than ever, the fight has to be for the unconditional rejection of the deployment of Nato missiles in Europe. than ever, is the goal that unites, that mobilises, that enjoys majority support in public opinion. all points of view should be permitted free democratic expression on all other subjects: SS20s, Nato, the perspective of a complete or partial nuclear-free zone in slogans should not be made a precondi-
It is still more important to prevent becoming bogged down in compromises that divide or de-
This is the major risk. The administration, knowing that it will be difficult for the European bourgeoisies to confront their own populations, will be forced to help them demobilise the movement. To this end, it will make certain superficial concessions, without giving up on the essential aim. These concessions are called torium', 'a freeze', partial installation, progressive installation, etc.
Another solution could be the participation of the European governments in the Geneva negotiations to help them swallow the pill. It would be wrong to minimise the imperialists' partial concessions, if they are tangible. But they should still be explained as a product of the anti-war movement's ability to mo-
This will help the movement to win still more forces so as to finally be able to impose the stated objective.
Secondly, the movement must keep to a strategy based on the awakening, the organisation and mobilisation of the masses. Those in the movement who in 1981 told themselves we can do no better' were mistaken. If they say the same now, they will again be mistaken.
While the shift in public opinion may have reached its peak, the mass movement, embracing the working class, is only making its debut. This force is the guarantor of victory. More must be done to win its participation in anti-war mobilisations. This is possible in the months to come.
Regardless of the scope of the actions taken around the December meeting of the Nato council, spring 1984 should bring a new blossoming of activity, to make a sharp response to the European governments. At that point many of them will be facing their electorates in the European elections.
Thirdly, the anti-war movement has to develop a conscious strategy of uniting with the organised workers movement, on the basis of joint opposition to the deployment of the missiles, austerity policies, and military spending *Jobs not Bombs' is a slogan whose popularity can only increase in the months to come.
Finally, conscious activity on the political terrain should be developed. From of view, the movement fre quently oscillates between a rather crude, purely extra-parliamentary orientation that leads it to ignore what is happening in parliament and within the political parties — and a certain tail-endism when something begins to move in the big whether parliament, government or the political parties.
In several European countries that are crucial to the success of Reagan's policies in the deployment of the Euromissiles, rightwing bourgeois governments that are convinced of the need to install the missiles, are however subject to enormous popular pressure which could threaten their stability in the more or less near future.
Using all the political opportunities in the unions, the social-democratic parties, and also in the mass social organisations linked to Christian Democracy for example, would allow the anti-missiles movement to win a new round after October 1983, and this time on the strictly political terrain.
15