Class ine neeaed in CND

Scan page 11

by West Midland councill Dave Spencer cillors and representatives from Peace Groups.

We want to have a discussion on the GLC report on withdrawing from Civil Defence when it is published.

A recommendtion was also made to appoint a new officer for 'hazard analysis' Civil Defence. after all, is supposed ui include defence against peacetime hazards like stores of chemicals and liquid gas. Yri no-one even has a clear picture of where these hazards are. ON THE weekend before the massive demonstration against the Reagan Thatcher war drive, Labour CND met in Bradford to discuss 'Alternative Defence Strategy' The alternatives were varied - not even agreeing about what should be defended, let alone how.

Together with another Socialist Organiser supporter and a Militant supporter at the conference, l tried to put a motion:

'Labour's defence policy must be based on working class interests. Such a policy should be dictated by the interests of the international working class. This should include the building of international workers' unity against war. Workers' organisations are their only defence.

The platform refused to take this motion, but we were able to argue the issue further in workshops.

Defence policy, 1 argued, should be based on defeating the British capitalist state and creating a workers' militia. The workers' defence squads formed for protection against fascist and police attacks could be the beginnings of such a militia.

Other options discussed included non-violent resistance, guerrilla tactics, etc. But the main conference debate was about NATO.

Many of us argued that Tahan'e cunnart for NATA stands in contradiction to its commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament. But conference chairperson Robin Cook MP replied that withdrawal from NATO was unlikely in the near future, and anyway it was not in Labour's interests for Labour CND to say that Labour's present policy is based on a contradicuon.

Dan Smith presented a more elaborate argument - proposing "conditional British membership of NATO, using the threat of withdrawal to extract concessions from NATO and turn it into an anti-nuclear alliance!

Norway and Denmark are members of NATO and do not have nuclear weapons. he said, and it would be wrong to withdraw from NATO and leave them isolated.

Tim Summers from London pointed out that NATO is run by a bunch of generals who are not likely to be converted into humanitarians by a British government negotiating with them. And others argued that we must oppose NATO not only because of its nuclear weapons but also because of its class nature. NATO back-up for the Turkish generals shows NATO's role as a counter-revolutionary alliance, even though it is conventional weaponry that those generals use to shoot down workers.

The conference ended without any votes or decisions, though Bob Cryer's summing up speech came down firmly for withdrawal from NATO.

The discussion needs to be continued, and on a better-organised and democratic basis.