Sunday, December 09, 2018
Reviving the Nuclear
Disarmament Movement: A Practical Proposal
Although a widespread movement has developed to fight climate
change, no counterpart has emerged to take on the rising danger of nuclear
disaster—yet
commondreams.org/views/2018/12/09/reviving-nuclear-disarmament-movement-practical-proposal
In
late November 2018, Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned public
intellectual, remarked that “humanity faces two imminent existential threats:
environmental catastrophe and nuclear war.”
Curiously,
although a widespread environmental movement has developed to save the planet
from accelerating climate change, no counterpart has emerged to take on the
rising danger of nuclear disaster. Indeed, this danger―exemplified by the
collapse of arms control and disarmament agreements, vast nuclear
“modernization” programs by the United States and other nuclear powers, and
reckless threats of nuclear war―has stirred remarkably little public protest
and even less public debate during the recent U.S. midterm elections.
Of
course, there are peace and disarmament organizations that challenge the
nuclear menace. But they are fairly small and pursue their own, separate
anti-nuclear campaigns.
Such campaigns―ranging from cutting funding for a new
nuclear weapon, to opposing the Trump administration’s destruction of yet
another disarmament treaty, to condemning its threats of nuclear war―are
certainly praiseworthy. But they have not galvanized a massive public uprising
against the overarching danger of nuclear annihilation.
In
these circumstances, what is missing is a strategy that peace organizations and
activists can rally around to rouse the public from its torpor and shift the
agenda of the nuclear powers from nuclear confrontation to a nuclear
weapons-free world.
The Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, launched
decades ago in another time of nuclear crisis, suggests one possible strategy.
Developed at the end of the 1970s by defense analyst Randy Forsberg, the Freeze
(as it became known) focused on a rather simple, straightforward goal: a
Soviet-American agreement to stop the testing, production, and deployment of
nuclear weapons.
As
Forsberg predicted, this proposal to halt the nuclear arms race had great popular
appeal (with polls showing U.S. public support at 72 percent) and sparked an
enormous grassroots campaign. The Reagan administration, horrified by this
resistance to its plans for a nuclear buildup and victory in a nuclear war,
fought ferociously against it. But to no avail. The Freeze triumphed in
virtually every state and local referendum on the ballot, captured the official
support of the Democratic Party, and sailed through the House of
Representatives by an overwhelming majority.
Although
the Reaganites managed to derail it in the Senate, the administration was on
the defensive and, soon, on the run. Joined by massive anti-nuclear campaigns
in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world, the Freeze campaign forced a
reversal of administration priorities and policies, leading to previously
unthinkable Soviet-American nuclear disarmament treaties and an end to the Cold
War.
How
might a comparable strategy be implemented today?
The
campaign goal might be a halt to the nuclear arms race, exemplified by an
agreement among the nuclear powers to scrap their ambitious nuclear
“modernization” plans. Although the Trump administration would undoubtedly rail
against this policy, the vast majority of Americans would find it thoroughly
acceptable.
An
alternative, more ambitious goal―one that would probably also elicit widespread
public approval―would be the ratification by the nuclear powers of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This
U.N.-brokered treaty, signed in July 2017 by the vast majority of the world’s
nations and scorned by the governments of the United States and other
nuclear-armed countries, prohibits nations from developing, testing, producing,
acquiring, possessing, stockpiling, using, or threatening to use nuclear
weapons.
The
second stage of a current campaign strategy, as it was in the strategy of the
Freeze, is to get as many peace groups as possible to endorse the campaign and
put their human and financial resources behind it.
Despite
some possible qualms among their modern counterparts about losing their unique
identity and independence, working together in a joint effort seems feasible
today. Some of the largest of the current organizations―such as the American Friends
Service Committee, Peace Action, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, and Veterans for Peace―are thoroughly committed to
building a nuclear weapons-free world and, therefore, might well be willing to
embark on this kind of coalition venture.
The
third stage of an effective strategy is winning the battle for public opinion.
In the case of the Freeze, this entailed not only holding lots of gatherings in
people’s living rooms, but introducing Freeze resolutions at conventions of
religious denominations, unions, professional associations, and the vast
panoply of voluntary organizations, where they almost invariably passed.
Having
a concrete, common-sense proposal to support―one coming up at a church
conclave, in a town meeting, at a union assembly, or on the ballot―activists
engaged in a widespread conversation on a key political issue with friends, neighbors,
and members of mainstream organizations. It’s the kind of grassroots
educational opportunity that peace and disarmament advocates should welcome
today.
A
final stage involves turning the objective into government policy. The Freeze
campaign found that many politicians were delighted to adopt its program―in
some cases even a bit too eager, bringing it to Congress before full public
mobilization. Similarly, at present, some key Democrats—including the chair of the incoming House Armed Services Committee and
likely Democratic presidential candidates are already
gearing up an attack upon the Trump administration’s nuclear “modernization”
program, its withdrawal from disarmament treaties, and its eagerness to launch
a nuclear war. Consequently, if a major public campaign gets rolling,
substantial changes in public policy are within reach.
To be
fully effective, such a campaign requires international solidarity—not only to
bring domestic pressure to bear on diverse nations, but overseas pressure as
well. The Freeze movement worked closely with nuclear disarmament movements around the world,
and this international coalition produced striking results. The power of the
anti-nuclear movement within nations allied with the U.S. government led to
their governments constantly pressing the Reagan administration to temper its
bellicose ambitions and accept nuclear disarmament.
Similarly,
Eastern Bloc officials found themselves forced to scramble for the support of
other governments and, even worse, forced to deal with protest campaigns
erupting within their own countries. These kinds of international pressures,
enhanced by the current strong dissatisfaction of non-nuclear nations with the
escalation of the nuclear arms race and the related dangers of nuclear war,
could play an important role today.
Of
course, this proposal suggests only one of numerous possible ways to develop a
broad anti-nuclear campaign. Even so, there should be little doubt about the
necessity for organizing that campaign. The alternative is allowing the world
to continue its slide toward nuclear catastrophe.
© 2018
Foreign Policy In Focus
Because
of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be
won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not
your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising
dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone.
It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift
of every size matters—please do.
Lawrence S.
Wittner is professor of history emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His
latest book is a satirical novel about the corporatization of higher education, 'What
Going On at UAardvark?'
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski2001 [at] comcast.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment