missiles,
But acts are something else.
Integration of the left wing was limithidden issue in the elections ed to putting a single representative on the Central Committee, Antonio Romero, who was surrounded by 109 representatives of the two other factions. And the
The Danish version of Thatcherism suffered a surprise setback in the Jandifferences are being
"normalized" only to the extent that this enables the leader-
Premier Poul Schlueter had been expected to add another to a string of ship to get through congresses.
electoral victories for the hardnosed right in Western Europe, following
This is what CP leader Francisco Pal-
Thatcher in Britain and Kohl in West Germany.
ero had to say about it: "Would the pub-
The same basis was there. Schlueter offered a consistent policy, and his lication of the various amendments make reformist left opponents did not. It was the Social Democrats in fact who this congress more democratic? I don't began the austerity drive, and then deliberately turned the wheel over to think so, because far from promoting debate and synthesis, it would lead inevithe Conservatives when the road got bumpy he parties to the left of the Social Democrats, although they have ably to polarization and division."
greater weight in Denmark than anywhere else in northern Europe, did
This original conception of democracy promoted factional methods of de-
Nonetheless, Danish voters did not reconcile themselves to swallowing bate and lead to the strange situation the bitter pill of a new and stronger Schlueter government.
where Carrillo could represent himself
The ruling four-party coalition increased its seats in the Folketing to the Eleventh Congress as a persecuted from 65 to 76 but it still ended up 14 seats short of a majority The Social vote actually was very slight.
Undoubtedly Iglesias drew support
Democrats dropped from 32.9% in 1981 to 31.6%.
from the fact that no oppositionist
Party went from 11.3% to 11.5%; the Left Socialists from 2.7% to 2.6%.
has anything to hope for from Carrillo's
The historically antimilitarist bourgeois party, the Radicals, went from return to the effective leadership of the party. The friends of the "reformers"
The main changes were in the spectrum of the right-wing parties.
have heard him say continually that he
Schlueter's Conservative Party took a clearly dominant position on the would throw them out of the party if right, increasing its percentage of the vote from 14.5 to 23.4.
The Conservative Party's gains about equalled the losses of its coali-
Party members who sympathize with tion partner, the Center Democrats, and the radical right Progress Party of the positions of Ignacio Gallego are not likely to forget that it was Carrillo who from 8.3% to 4.6%, and the Progress Party from 8.9% to 3.6%.
led the offensive at the Fifth Congress of
The following article was written before the elections. So, it reflects the PSUC, which ended in splitting the the general apprehension that Schlueter would be reinforced for a coun party down the middle.
terattack against the peace movement. The result was the opposite.
The confused debate went hand in hand with deep internal division in the
PCE and an extraordinary violent discussion filled with mutual attacks. The
PCE has come out of this congress without a new split but with a climate of crisis and internal warfare that it will be very difficult to dissipate.
Trying to build a left alternative to the
PSOE based on a reformist policy is a difficult juggling operation. In fact, one of the sources of the crisis of the PCE is the lack of political space for two reformist parties.
On the other hand, there is no sign of any letup in the internal tensions in the party. Carrillo is too strong and was to close to victory to let himself be pushed to the sidelines.
Moreover, he cannot make an open comprowith Gerardo Iglesias without a mise large part of his base becoming demoralized or turning toward the Communist
Unity Congress.
On the other hand, Iglesias cannot be content with his majority on the Central
Committee and the Executive Committee as long as ten regional organizations (including the one in Madrid and in the
Valencian country) are controlled by
Carrillistas who are only waiting for him to make the first misstep before launching a campaign against him.
The conclusion is obvious. The crisis
International Viewpoint 30 January 1984 uary 10 general elections. not offer a credible alternative.
The shift in the popular 5.1% to 5.5%. antitax demagogue Mogens Glistrup. Richard BISGAARD
Denmark is the only country in Western Europe where it has been possible to get the popular majority against the missiles reflected in the parliament. This was accomplished here despite the fierce opposition of the bourgeois minority government.
In this sense the Danish campaign was the most successful of the peace movements of the various West European governments in 1983.
Although there are no atomic weapons stationed on Danish soil today and Denmark has not accepted the 572 US first-strike missiles, it has been possible to build a very broad understanding of the danger that these first-strike weapons represent.
According to the surveys that have been done by the peace movement, 70% of the population are against the missiles. That means that the opposition goes deep into the ranks of those who vote for the bourgeois parties.
On May 26, a resolution was adopted mandating the government to demand that the Geneva negotiations be extended so that the US and the USSR could achieve a solution. The settlement it called for consisted of a reduction of the
The Socialist People's
The Center Democrats dropped Soviet SS-20s sufficient to reason for deploying the 572 American missiles.
Likewise, the resolution demanded that the French and British atomic weapons be included in the negotiations, and that preparations for installing the new missiles be halted during the negotiations.
Finally the resolution expressed support for all negotiations for a bilateral freeze and overall reduction of all types of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
This resolution was completely ignored by Nato. So, on December 1, a second resolution was passed mandating the government, in the December 10 Nato ministers meeting, to "decisively reject" deployment of the first Pershing and Cruise missiles. This resolution, moreover, called for Denmark not to pay a single penny for these missiles.
So, the Danish peace movement can note with some satisfaction that in general the objective of its 1983 campaign
This success was reflected not only in the comments by Nato officials, who lamented that Denmark had reduced itself to the status of a "footnote nation," in the same league as Greenland.
It was reflected also in the sour coun tenance of Uffe Ellemann Jensen, the
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
DENMARK -
Danish foreign minister. He was obviously sick at the thought of having to present "this dumb, absurd and completely irresponsible" resolution to his friends in can quite rightly be asked how a government made up of the parties most committed to Nato could agree to implement resolutions that seriously conflict with the key features of the Nato and US plans for stepped-up armament. Why did the government not resign instead of waiting until December 15 before calling new elections? And why did it choose to do this over a question such as the fi-
The answer is easy. In all likelihood, the government would lose if the main in the election were stepped-up nuclear armament and national security policy.
By calling the election over the finance bill, the government hoped to be able to drown the missiles issue in a flood of talk about low profits, the balance of payments and the budget deficit. Moreover, there was a good chance this tactic would work.
The polls are predicting a significant advance for the four-party bourgeois government. The Conservatives, headed by Premier Poul Schlueter, are expected to double their vote, from 15% in the last elections to about 30%, just behind the Social Democrats.
Of course, the other three government parties, the Venstre [Liberals], the Centrum Demokraterne and the Kristeligt Folkeparti [Christian People's Party] are expected to drop somewhat. But the Conservative gains should more than offset.
If the polls are borne out, the election results will not only make it easier for the bourgeois government to advance its reactionary incomes and austerity policy in parliament. They will also have effects on the country's foreign policy and national-security policy. Social Democrats balancing act
The indications are that the fourparty government will be able to get an absolute majority on these questions, with the support of the thoroughly reactionary Fremstridtsparti (Progress Party).
In this case, the majority against the missiles in the present parliament will be transformed into a clear majority for Nato's stepped up armament.
It is unlikely, however, that the bourgeois government would openly throw out the resolution on the missiles. That would complicate their relations with the bourgeois party, Venster, which supported Schlueter's antisocial economic policy in the last
Because of their antimilitarist historical tradition, the Radicals always vote against increases in military expenditures. This naturally put them on the side of those opposing the missiles, although they wavered time and time again and performed the most amazing acrobaties to avoid putting the bourgeois government on the spot for its total, uncritical support of everything that came from Nato and the US.
However, one thing is certain. If the four-party government gets a majority, along with the Fremskridtsparti, it will not lift a finger to implement the missiles resolution. And every attempt to get Denmark to take an independent and critical position toward the Nato armament schemes will be effectively blocked. falls mainly on the Social Democrats. In the past period, on several occasions this party had the opportunity to bloc with the Socialistisk Folkeparti (SF, Socialist People's Party, a group that has certain similarities to the Benn current in the British Labour Party), the Verstresocialistern [Left Socialists, a left centrist group], and the Radicals to bring down national security
But despite the fact that the Social Democrats would certainly gain in an election focused on the missiles issue, they have deliberately tried to avoid provoking an election on this question.
The reason for this is that the result of such an election could make "broad collaboration with the middle-of-theroad forces" impossible for several years. This would not only mean breaking up the unity with the bourgeois parties on the main points in Danish national security policy that has prevailed since the second world war and the formation of Nato. It would also mean such large gains for the parties to the left of the Social Democrats that they would no longer rule out collaboration with the other workers
Such a result would inevitably increase the pressure from the trade unions on the Social Democrats to form a workers government that would join with the rest of the workers movement to fight for deepgoing reforms in the interest of the majority of the population. That is, such a development would increase the pressure on the Social Democrats to break off their collaboration with the bourgeois
To avoid getting into such a position, the Social Democrats have staged a revolting show of parliamentary play-acting, trying to balance between deferring to the growing peace movement and maintaining their loyalty to Nato.
On the one hand, the Social Democrats have declared that they oppose the 572 missiles. On the other, they have consistently refused to come out clearly against the Nato Double-Track decision.
demand that Denmark be declared nuclear free, not just in peacetime but also in war has a great importance from Nato's nuclear strategy. would mean throwing out the treaties with the US and Nato that permit bringing more troops aircraft into Denmark in the event of so-
In accordance with these treaties, this year a long series of depots and bases are being built. They are for the 70,000 soldiers and 200 air-
Like elsewhere in Europe there have been mass prot
Likewise, they have declared that they are against having nuclear weapons on Danish soil "under any cireumstances." But at the same time, they have refused to come out for declaring Denmark a nuclear-free territory, not only in peace time but also in times of crisis and war. (1)
In the election campaign, the Danish peace movement mobilized all its forces to get citizens to vote for candidates opis how the movement will respond if the treaties mean that Danish airfields can be transformed in two hours' time into operational atomic bases from which fighters and
US or Britain could launch a surprise attack on the Soviet Union.
dragged into a war in which it has no say or interest, if for example the US decides, as a result of a conflict in Central America, to put all its forces in Europe and Nato as a whole on the alert to force the Soviet Union to stop all aid to the liberation movements in the third world.
30 January 1984
rainst the missiles (DR) January 10 elections wipe out the results that it struggled throughout 1983 achieve.
To answer this question, it is necessary to look back at the experience of the peace movement over the past two years. The secret of the Danish peace movement's success lies in its form of organization and in its exceptional ability to maintain unity despite political diversity.
A multitude of peace groups have grown up throughout the country. Since the fall of 1982, the great majority of these have affiliated to the "Landskampagne Stop Atomraketterne" (National Campaign To Stop the Nuclear Missiles). Only groups belonging to the Danish offshoot of END [European Nucclear Disarmament, a third-camp peace group started in Britain by E.P. Thomson] have refused in a sectarian way to join in this united work. The reason they give is that not enough attention is paid to the International Viewpoint 30 January 1984
"Eastern end of things."
Up until now that basis for the work of the Landskampagne has been clear and simple — to get a clear and unambiguous Danish rejection of the 572 missiles. That means that Denmark should not do anything to help install the missiles and not pay a penny for this purpose, and that it should do everything possible to
Double-Track Decision over-
On this basis of unity, clearly opposing the US's and Nato's plans for stepping up armament, it was possible to mobilize hundreds of thousands of people. Several mass demonstrations were built. most recent was in Copenhagen on October 29, which brought out about a hundred thousand people in the main Danish
Throughout the country, between 150,000 and 200,000 people came into streets on that day to demonstrate against the missiles. Success of the peace movement
At the same time, the peace movement also began to penetrate deeply into the labor movement. In contrast to 1982, a long list of district councils and unions big demonstrations in A number of active trade unionists have organized the "Fagbevaegelse for Fred" ("Labor Movement for other cities, a lot of unions and even Social Democratdominated district councils have affiliated to local peace groups.
The best illustration of this development was on November 22, when the leadership of the Danish National Labor Council (Landsorganisationen - LO) felt itself obliged, because of the pressure from the membership, to follow the example of the West German National Labor Council (DGB). It called a fiveminute general strike against the missiles.
The strike call was followed massively in all the country's bigger cities. Buses stopped, workers left the factories and marched down the streets carrying big stopping traffice. stations transmitted the signal for the stoppage. Public workers stopped work. And in the schools and other educational institutions people took advantage of the occupation to discuss peace and the arms
In a few short minutes, this action showed the enormous power the organized labor movement has. Not only is it able to bring society to a total standstill but it is also able to draw behind it broad layers of the general population, when it shows decisiveness and the will to use its power to back up its demands.
For the peace movement, this action should be a textbook example of why it is necessary to orient to the labor movement. However, in large sections of the peace movement there is a clear tendency to put the emphasis instead on drawing more and more bourgeois forces into
Not surprisingly, it is in particular activists from the pro-Moscow Danish
Communist Party [Danmarks Kommunistisk Parti - DKP] and from the CP-dominated peace organization, the Samarbejdskomite for Fred og [Committee for United Work for Peace and Security] that are pushing in this work - to the contrary. This is just supposed to be something that the peace movement should not get involved in. They say it should be left entirely to the active unionists to spread the fight for peace in the labor movement.
In the peace movement, on the other hand, the Pers argue that the task is to maintain the breadth of the movement and to try to bring in new elements - petty-bourgeois forces — into a growing people's front for
This conception follows from the line the CPers are pursuing in the peace movement. For example, a section of the leading people were against calling on the peace movement to participate in the October 4 demonstration against Schleuter organized by the trade-union movement.
The (Pers' argument was the follow-
There are a lot of people in the peace movement who vote for the bourgeois parties. And they will be frightened off if we call on them directly to bring down the missile government.
At the same time, the Pers did not do very much either to get the peace movement to mobilize against the Reinforcement treaties (see footnote 1) or to try to make the connection between the antiimperialist struggle and the fight for peace in Europe.
Behind this line there lies a general conception of the peace movement's function and tasks. For the DKP, the peace movement is not a movement to get results here and now but one to facilitate diplomatic victories for the Soviet Union. DKP makes negotiations main axis
Therefore, the DKP activists in the peace movement have striven systematically to change the original basis of the Landskampagne Instead of keeping the movement focused on the clear demand for rejecting the Nato missiles - regardless of the negotiations in Geneva - the CPers have tried to tie the peace movement to these talks. This line has been expressed in slogans such as "Give the Geneva Negotiations Another Chance" or "Sincere and Honest Arms Reduction Talks Now!"
Furthermore, the CPers tried to make the May 26 parliamentary resolution the activities of the peace This resolution was, of an important victory for the But the resolution did not amount to a clear rejection of the 572
Instead of using this opportunity to press the Social Democrats to go further, the DKP activists stopped halfway. The
peace movement's task was suddenly no longer to force parliament to heed the demand of the people, but rather to get broader support among the population for the position of the majority in parliament.
Finally DKP members have proposed making the demand for a freeze the main one for the future struggle. The main argument they use is that the installation of the first Nato missiles and the counterdeployment of SS-21s, SS-22s and SS-23s in East Germany and Czechoslovakia means a new situation in the peace movement.
Therefore, the reasoning continues, we should concentrate our forces on stop ping the arms race before it gets fully underway. So, the peace movement should agitate for a negotiated settlement in Geneva leading to a reduction of nuclear arms in Europe, for example on the basis outlined in the May 26 parliamentary resolution.
It was only strong criticism from the SAP peace activists that kept this proposal from being accepted at the conference of the Landskampagne in Fredericia in mid-December.
The SAP activists argued that we should not call for a freeze, that is, accept the 9 Pershing II missiles and the 38 Cruise missiles already installed. We should call for their immediate removal. And we should not make the question of arms reduction dependent on the US and the USSR being able to come to some agreement behind closed doors in Geneva. We should demand disarmament now, starting in the West.
There was a certain receptivity to these arguments among the 300 peace activists at the conference. In any case, the worst features of the CP's proposal were dropped. Program for peace
The new program adopted includes the establish a nuclear free zone in the Scan-
As is obvious, the Landskampagne program is strongly influenced by the DKP's position. That is, the emphasis is put on bilateral arms reduction through negotiations, instead of on unilateral disarmament in the West through political strikes, mass mobilizations and blockades of Nato
However, the decisive thing is not the exact wording and the specific program. What is decisive is the dynamic in the against the missiles objectively opposes imperialism, even if it is built on the demand for bilateral arms reduction.
Therefore, the main question is what activities the Danish peace movement undertakes. And here a number of promising proposals have been made.
First, there is a proposal to work with the peace movements in the other West European countries to conduct an alternative referendum on the missiles in the period before the EEC elections in June 1984. This is an important proposal that points the way forward toward greater international coordination of the fight for peace.
Another important proposal is the one for contacting the West German peace movement to investigate possibilities for propagating the idea of simultaneous monthly days of protest against the missiles in all the West European countries.
Besides this, the peace movement is preparing for mass mobilizations on the occasion of the traditional Easter marches. Additionally, a big peace conference is to be held in the spring.
In order to get rid of the missiles that have been deployed in West Europe and therefore also the missiles in East Europe - the labor movement has to put all its weight behind the fight for peace. That means that it has to take action through political strikes.
The unions in West Germany, Denmark, Finland and Belgium have already shown the labor movement's opposition to stepped-up armament by warning strikes of 5 to 15 minutes. The next step is a one-day general strike against the missiles throughout Western Europe.
The main task for the peace movement in 1984 is to increase the collaboration between the peace movement and the peace movement and the unions throughout Western Europe, without being stopped by any national borders. Only if the becomes so extensive that political stability is threatened, can the imperialist war-makers be forced to pull back. DEN following demands:
1. Immediate ployment of new missiles in both the East MORE and West and removal of those that have already been installed. That goes for both the Pershing II and Cruise missiles, as well as for the new Soviet missiles that have been installed to counter them.
2. New negotiations to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and move toward a Europe entirely free from nuclear weapons.
3. Denmark must pursue an active policy for peace aimed at fostering dialogue and detente between East and West.
4. The government and the parliament must take the following steps to move toward making Denmark nuclear free:
Declare Denmark a nuclear free area not only in peactime but also in time of crises and war.
Take Denmark out of Nato's nuclear planning group.
Take initiatives to get the Scandinavian countries to work concretely to 16
-W
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
WEG ZU -RIEDER JedenKriegsde OR FRI verweldern (w/1019) 750 KN International Viewpoint 30 January 1984