International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation

Preparing for wars or imposing peace: a challenge for the year 2000

National conference of Peace Activists in France

Lysiane Alezard

Last November, the Mouvement de la Paix (France) initiated a national conference of peace activists to discuss the major challenges ahead of us to build a nuclear-weapon and war free 21st century.

During two days, 300 delegates from all parts of the country and from various backgrounds exchanged ideas and put forward some proposals for action and reflection. This was not quite a traditional "Congress" of the Mouvement de la Paix, not a statutory one, but rather a forum. The reason for this was that we felt the need to confront different views and experiences to address issues of vital importance for our near future. Doing so implied opening up to all those individuals and personalities concerned with war and peace problems, and not only to "organized" peace activists.

1. The need to abolish all nuclear weapons.

Opened by Martin Butcher and the National secretary of Pax Christi France, this discussion was a key one. Indeed, in the recent years, many steps foward have been achieved. From the campaign against French tests, to the signing of a CTBT; from the extension of the NPT to the decision of the ICJ declaring the threat and use of nuclear weapons illegal; from the Canberra Commission to the appeal of admirals and generals: public opinion now has major supports and supporters in their demand to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

Where do we go from here? This question is particularly relevant in the French context. There are no more underground tests. France has dismantled its strategic missiles, closed down its nuclear test site. How can we mobilize public opinion further and make sure all new nuclear programmes are stopped, when people tend to believe all this is already over?

At this particular point, it may be useful to recall the content of article6 of the NPT, since this is the snag in the so called "minimum nuclear deterrence" of French policy. Nuclear powers commit themselves to moving "towards complete nuclear disarmament". France, like all other four nuclear powers did sign the NPT. Is it not therefore inconsistent to have taken this international commitment and at the same time continue to modernize thenuclear arsenal? Is it consistent with a continuation of laboratory testing which, as no one can deny, will eventually give way to actual tests?

Our role is no doubt to point out such inconsistencies, and demand a real public discussion on this issue. Indeed, for 1998, and this has just been confirmed by Prime Minister Jospin, new nuclear programmes will be carried out further. This means our government will be spending money this year on developing another new generation missile (M51) to be operational in 2008. Inother words, France is already saying to the world: "in the 21st century, we shall continue to base our security policy on nuclear weapons". This contradicts a general feeling in public opinion, but also among leading experts who more and more point at the obsolescence of nuclear weapons.

This is the reason why participants deemed it essential to develop a broad information campaign as well as continue to take action on nuclear sites. Such a campaign will target the main objectives: stopping the simulation programme which candidate Jospin, in 1997, found "useless and too costly"; demanding a Convention for the elimination of nuclear weapons, which could be convened in Paris in 2000.

2. To build a new security, moving out of the military order.

Campaigning for a world free of nuclear weapons echoes an aspiration to live in a safer and better world. It meets a major concern to get rid of the old military order. The whole issue was introduced by Mr. Bertrand, an expert on security and conflict prevention issues, who has long worked for the United Nations.

It appeared quite clearly that the question is not so much "is it possible to move out of the military order?" as "it is necessary to move out of the military order". This is based on the current situation where, obviously, the question of "peace" has become a positive one. In other words, it has become more obvious that conflicts cannot be settled by violent means or by war. The experience of the Gulf war has played a major role in this respect.

We find ourselves at this particular moment in our civilization when military solutions, the idea that "if you want peace, prepare for war", all these ideas have come to a state of exhaustion. They are deemed incapable tosolve the problems raised to human kind. A range of reflections came aboutas to the three or four decades of Cold war. Then, a leading theme to mobilize public opinion was the preposterous accumulation of nuclear weapons which did not protect people and countries but became a danger for human kind. Today, have we not reached the point where nuclear weapons have to be eliminated not only because they are a danger to human kind, but also because it has become necessary to build new solutions to guarantee peace and security?

This growing idea in public opinion that a natural situation is one of peace rather than one of conflict and violence has forced ambivalent positions on the part of big powers. For instance, the United States boast to wage wars with "no dead", which sounds very good. Except that you still wage a WAR and that people die, on the other side. Which was obvious with the Gulfwar in 1991, and the problem is still unsolved.

The current situation in the world is therefore one of major contradictions: people generally believe it is necessary to reduce military dangers and wars, while mainstream strategies go against such aspirations.

This is where the role of peace movements comes. A lot of attention was paid to the whole international movement to ban landmines and its aftermaths in terms of public opinion mobilization. In order to be effective, peace movements need to have objectives adapted to the situation, in the framework of a general approach aiming at moving out of the military order. This meansaudacity and ability to mobilize public opinion.

As far as France is concerned, in the new political context of a left wing majority in parliament and of strong aspirations to change, it is necessarythat France make a deep-going change in the area of security. For the timebeing, France has a defense policiy, but France does not have a security and peace policy. Which means it is our responsibility to push further in public opinion the demand to transcend the current military order.

3. Choosing human beings rather than arms.

Introduced by a union activist working in arsenals, this workshop focused on the question of conversion in a new and dynamic way. Given the economic situation of France, with 12% of unemployed, it is often argued that reducing military spending might add to the number of jobless. Actually, while military spending have been steady in France over the last ten years, 100,000 jobs have been lost in military industries.

No doubt that this complex issue makes it essential to have more frequent encounters between peace activists and union activists. All the more so as diversification is an attempt to meet the needs of populations and to build an alternative society based on an alternative security.

As a matter of fact, conversion is no utopia. A lot of projects exist and have been elaborated by a range of workers and engineers. What is at stake is to make them known and demand that resources be spent on them. A broad range of examples were given to us which showed their usefulness and validityin a number of areas: in the fishing industry, for radars, weather forecasts, prevention of natural hazards, waste disposals...

The question of "choosing human beings rather than arms" also points ata close connection between disarmament and development. As Reverend Martino emphasized in a recent speech at the UN, "We cannot simultaneaously payfor war and peace".

As a matter of fact, 800 billion dollars were spent globally in 1997 on armaments, while 1,5 billion people live in great poverty. The responsibility of great powers is at stake when the percentage of the GDP spent on public development aid is on the decrease. Which strongly contradicts commitments taken in the recent years both in the G7 and at the UN General Assembly.

Many participants emphasized the criminal role played by the arms trade, whether it be light weapons or landmines. The campaign to ban landmines has been met with major successes, and should not calm down until all mines havebeen removed by those who laid them in millions.

These were some of the leading issues tackled at the National Conference ofpeace activists, together with the question of European security, in the presence of many European peace activists. They gave way to a more coherent approach of war and peace problems, with the general concern to promote a culture of peace. Backed up by UNESCO programmes, this means pushing forwarda conception of a society in which human and international relations are no longer based on the use of force, on violence, but rather on cooperation and mutual understanding.

On the year of the 50th anniversary of the Unversal declaration of human rights, there is still one right to fight for - the right for peace. This led us to elaborate a national campaign for 1998, for the human right to peace, with the following objectives: imposing a radical change in the security policy of France, promoting a non military security in Europe, therefore campaigning to eliminate nuclear weapons and to stop the arms trade. This "Peace planet" campaign will consist of a caravan addressing public opinion in as many places as possible with the Abolition 2000 international petition and with a substantial leaflet to promote a public discussion on these issues.

Note: For interested readers, the Conference memo is available in French at the Mouvement de la paix email mvtpaix@globenet.org.

Lysiane Alezard, Mouvement de la Paix, tel +33 1 40 12 09 12, fax -11 57 87, email mvtpaix@globenet.org.