DOCUMENT Peace and European unity THE AUTHOR of the following article is the editorial writer of the underground Polish journal Robotnik and a member of the Robotnik political group. He also works with the magazine Naprzod, the organ of the Wola political group. In the monthly publication Vacat, he wrote a detailed presentation of the debates in the peace movements in the West, in which he mentioned very favorably the European Network for East-West Dialogue (see document above).
In a contribution entitled "Not only peace," written in November 1985, he undertook a balance sheet of the Western peace movement and explained the perspectives of a part of the Polish opposition that wants to participate in the debate with peace forces in both parts of the continent. The following are major excerpts from this article, in which the author gives his opinion on the Prague Appeal. IGOR LEWY
PEACE MOVEMENT acceptance of such a European outlook is certainly going to enable Charter 77 to establish closer links with the peace movement.
The original East-West dialogue has gradually changed into an interEuropean dialogue, which is a step in the right direction. The authors of the Prague Appeal refer to the work of the Helsinki Conference, to its Final Act. They think that signing such a document highlights the formal independence and sovereignty of the contracting parties. The Czechs have concluded that standing by the letter of international law is enough to begin having it respected in deed.
The Helsinki Accord, which was signed in the period of "detente," formally ignored the division into blocs and maintained the fiction that the signers were independent of the blocs. However, the blocs have not ceased to exist, and that is why this magnificent document has remained a dead letter.
In its enthusiastic responses to the Prague Appeal, END explains its reservations about the Helsinki Accords, maintaining that "Quite often accords and other international agreements have simply been pushed aside when they were no longer useful to our leaders." And that is the fact of the matter.
If the English complain that their government has not implemented the measures called for in the Final Act, what can we Poles, Czechs and Russians say.
It is time to banish this much vaunted Helsinki spirit, if we want to envisage seriously acting not just in the name of justice but with effectiveness. The fundamental reason why such documents have not pushed us forward, and will not, is the limited or non-existent representativeness of the people who sign them.
If, in fact, we want East-West dialogue among citizens, there is no reason to keep matters on the official level in approaching the questions involved in treaties.
Mient Jan Faber, the leader of the Ecumenical Peace Council (IKV) in the Netherlands, and Rainer Eppelman, an East German peace activist, concluded an individual peace pact between themselves. This symbolie gesture is part of a large-scale plan.
It seems that a system of such pacts can have more meaning than propaganda. A personal contact between individuals of both blocs can increase confidence and eliminate the fears growing out of the frictions among nations. Indeed throughout history, war psychosis has been the
1. More precisely, it was from a series of prominent individuals representative of Charter 77.
International Viewpoint 24 March 1986
IGOR LEW Y
It was no coincidence that the most important document at the convention [the fourth convention of END, held in Amsterdam in July 1985] was the Prague Appeal from Charter 77. (1) This document expressed quite pertinently the mood and the ambiance that prevail at the moment in the West European peace movement.
It was, in this sense, a document written by Europeans who are watching attentively the growth of the movement, rather than representing the point of view of the opposition in East Europe. The Prague Appeal contains some penetratingly formulated questions posed at the best possible time.
The objective of the appeal was to "overcome the division into blocs through an alliance of free and independent nations, in the framework of an autonomous democratic community, fully European and living in friendship with all the nations of the world."
It is not surprising that such an attractive vision elicited several responses during the convention, and that other responses to it are being drawn up.
It was a vision of a united Europe in which "freedom and dignity for citizens" opens the way for the freedom and autonomy of Europe, where frontiers would no longer be important, even if there was no reason to alter them, and where, in fact, they should be guaranteed.
A way to achieve this objective was the resolution of the German question through the reunification of
18
Germany within the present frontiers of both states, the dissolution of the military blocs, and a reduction of the arms level sufficient to exclude the threat of aggression from either side.
These aims were generally accepted. The convention was to define the initial paths to pursue to achieve them. It is on the basis of its responses to this problem that the Amsterdam meeting will be judged.
In order to put into practice the ideas of the Appeal, these independent social movements and citizens initiatives would have to exercize a growing influence over the actions of the governments.
The proof that such a situation does not exist in the West is the defeat the movement has suffered on the question of the intermediaterange missiles. The proof that it is not possible in the East are the empty seats at the Convention set aside for delegates from the independent movements beyond the Iron Curtain.
Our presence in Amsterdam was not only symbolic. The peace activists already understand that we are indispensable, just as the support of allies in the West is indispensable for us. The import of the Prague Appeal does not come simply from its rich content but also from the standpoint from which it was written.
The Appeal reflects virtually no national particularism. In this sense, it could just as well have been written by someone who had never visited East Europe. It is a document written from a European point of view, in the broadest sense of the term. The
principal factor making war possible.
If through the signing of such individual nonaggression pacts, accords are concluded between independent social movements, and if these accords give rise to practical cooperation to realize a common political vision that goes beyond particular national interests, then we will be able to talk about a real system of guarantees, not only of peace, but also of European unity.
The coordination of political activity at an international level was, until now, the domain of the big powers, especially the Soviet Union. There is no reason why the European movement for social emancipation, for peace and integration should not be able to apply an equally effective pressure.
The culmination of these activities should be the convening of a conference on security and cooperation in Europe. The delegates to such a conference could be representatives of social movements, unions, autonomous groups, ecologists and from political organizations. That is, it should be made up of ordinary people and not of professional politicians.
In order to apply the Final Act contained in the Helsinki Accords governments could use the whole power of the state machine. They do not do so because they are hypocritical about the commitments made in Helsinki because for them it was just a propaganda exercise. The signatories of an eventual Helsinki II will have many fewer resources at their disposal. Their means will lie in the willingness to cooperate between the different organizations and independent groups who would sign such an accord. The significance of the Final Act will depend on the number and the strength of such organizations.
PEACE MOVEMENT equal partners. In your view the equality and independence of all the signatory states of this treaty will naturally open the way to the unification of Europe. In the face of such assertions we do not know what to think. Do you really believe that states such as the GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia are the equals of the USSR? When have they ever stopped being under Soviet tutelage either before the Accords or afterwards? Is it not the case that they have always accepted the diktats of Moscow come hell or high water? And do you really think that adding a paragraph here or there to such a document could make Belgium or the Netherlands equal to the United States in determining NATO policy? Is it not obvious that US imperialism enjoys an economic and military balance of forces which allows it to brush aside objections by European governments who fear the mass reactions to deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles in their countries? missiles in their countries?
You say it is a shame that the peace movements in Europe have not taken up the commitments of the European states made in Helsinki, stressing that, in your view, this treaty gives ordinary citizens the opportunity to exercise a public scrutiny over their governments and to find solutions which would bring about positive change at the continent-wide level. We would not insult you by supposing that you would give equal value to the section of the Accords on Czechoslovakia and the other countries of the East. But you seem to think that it is different with regard to the West and that it should have been possible to use this document as a step along the road to peace and democracy. The events of the last few months and of the last few years are there to belie your optimism. What can we expect from governments?
The peace movement in the Netherlands, for instance, decided to use the traditional instrument of democracy by organising a referendum against deployment of nuclear weapons in their country. They got 3.7 million signatures, which in terms of numbers, is equivalent to the social weight of Solidarnose in Poland in 1980-81. This did not, however, prevent the Dutch government from, in the last instance, complying with the wishes of the NATO powers and deploying the missiles, against the wishes of the people who elected them.
In a statement in March 1985, the Polish group, "Liberty and Peace"