Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!psuvax1!simon
From: simon@psuvax1.UUCP (Janos Simon)
Newsgroups: fa.arms-d
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V2 #69 (better format)
Message-ID: <1173@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Nov-84 13:11:05 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1173
Posted: Sun Nov  4 13:11:05 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 04:28:49 EST
References: <3037@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 34

>   4. The US becomes the true leader in the evolution beyond war by affecting
>      Soviet policy; by playing to the positive forces in the Soviet Union and
>      thus giving them power.  The power residing in the dangerous hawks 
>      naturally dies out and they (as well as our own fear-ridden crazies)
>      gradually become a harmless fringe group.
> 
>   5. There are still conflicts but all know that they can and must be resolved
>      without war.  War is as obsolete now as is the Catholic inquisition and
>      genocide are for the rectifying of "wrongs".

Great dreaming here. HOW does the US effectively influence the internal politics
of the USSR? Their system is less then totally open - I doubt that there is 
anyone who knows which groups there are inside the USSR government, what their
long-term aims are, etc., much less do we have the ability to favor one of 
these. Public opinion is not public in the USSR. The voice of the citizens 
is not heard, and surely not listened to. We may be able to influnce Sakharov,
perhaps even a few intellectuals that are "in", but this falls way short of 
influencing the country.
As for 5., maybe you should remind the people in Lebanon, Biafra, or Timor that
genocide is an ugly word.
The point I'm trying to make is that proposals have to be realistic. One does
not have to be a cynic - some hope can be found in idealistic solutions (e.g.
India, integration in the South), but one cannot just bury one's head in the
sand proclaiming that things that should happen, will. After all, Mahatma
Gandhi and Martin Luther King were superb politicians, who had definite plans.
Gandhi didn't just decide that since the occupation of India was morally wrong
the British will realize it and leave - he organized confrontations, and made
sure they were very well publicized. Every time the British had to arrest 
violently thousands of paceful protesters, millions of Indians were made aware
of this. As a result, while his aims and methods were peaceful, the implied
threat that these millions of people may stop being nonviolent was not lost on
either party. What is the similar threat that Australia can evoke?
We need good ideas, not wishful thinking.
js