OPINION Page 4 Wednesday, February 29, 1984 The Michigan Daily 4 T: <" & . . ;.. . i.z a. Securing peace through negotiation Peter Wallensteen is a visiting professor from Uppsala University ; in Sweden who is currently teaching in the University's political science department. He is also a con- tributing editor of a leading European peace research journal and a consultant to the United Nations on the impact of military research and development on the arms race. Wallensteen spoke with Daily Opinion Page editor Jackie Young about peace research, the European peace movement, Lebanon, military research, and U.S.-Soviet relations. Dialogue Daily: What is peace research and how can it be useful in steering coun- tries away from armed confrontation and the use of nuclear weapons? Wallensteen: Peace could most easily be defined as the absence of war, which means that research would go in- to questions about the origins of war, alternatives to war, ways of settling disputes, ways of disarmament-these are four basic fields. Research is carried out with customary methods, but by concentrating on the peace issue you achieve a focus for research and can develop a milieu working on the various aspects of the problem. The knowledge gained could have an impact in itself. Also, by explaining to studen- ts, by participating in public debates, by influencing decision makers, and by participating in independent or inter- national reports and commissions, peace research can have an impact. One hope is that the decision-makers will understand that the number of alternative courses are greater, and that much can be done in order to avoid conflicts from becoming armed in the, first place. Daily: Why have negotiations bet- ween the U.S. and the Soviet Union to limit nuclear arms failed over the past years? Were both parties very serious about accomplishing what they set out to do or was it just a move to appease the public and media? Wallensteen: I don't think there have been any real serious negotiations. There would be little problem finding technical solutions to the differences in the way weapon systems are built up. It would technically be possible to work out a system of verification if both par- ties really wanted to reach an agreement. But I doubt that they really want that. If you take the Soviet Union and the European situation, for instan- ce, the Soviets really wanted to have their SS20s in place just like the United States really wanted to put their missiles in Western Europe. So there was no real interest in concluding any agreements. This means the negotiations were there more to show that negotiations cannot succeed and that one has to continue with an armed build-up. Daily: Is there anything the American public can do to force policy-makers to get back to the bargaining table? Wallensteen: Yes. Being an open society, all the American political leaders will think about the votes, and if there is a strong opinion in the direction of real negotiation then the government will have to consider that. In the Soviet Union there is corresponding pressure but more from the welfare perspective. The people don't want to put as much money into weapons as they do right now. There is pressure to have a civilian development with a better food supply, better schools, better medical facilities, and so on. In the Soviet Union everybody knows that the arms build- up really hurts civilian development. So I think there are internal pressures on both sides, but they are just not strong enough. Daily: What brought us to this period in time which political observers refer to as Cold War II. Why have Ronald Reagan's strategies of resorting to for- ce before diplomacy been so appealing to the public? Wallensteen: I think there was a lot of frustration in the U.S. by the end of the 1970s. There was frustration over Iran and the hostages, and over the Soviets in Afghanistan. All this lead to the idea that if the United States - became stronger and could project an image of being more tough, these things wouldn't happen. So the public went for a candidate that would lend respect to but at the same time they tend to be favorable to NATO and they don't necessarily advocate that Western Europe should leave NATO. So it's a discussion whether you should confront the Soviet Union, or if you should try to talk with the Soviet Union. But at the same time what you see happening is that peace movements are developing also in the society within the Eastern bloc, so the Soviet Union is not necessarily escaping the blame. You find it in East Germany, you find it in Hungary, and you can say that the solidarity movement in Poland was part of the European movement to become more independent from the big superpowers. The net result of what goes on in Western Europe is probably European reduced reliance on the United States, a bit more of indepen- dence at least in some areas, cooperation in others. But I don't think anyone in Europe sees the United States as a greater threat than the Soviet Union. Daily: Do you think the Progressive Student Network activists who have tried to halt military research on cam- pus by blockading professor's labs are making effective moves to show distaste for the arms race? Wallensteen: Research really does have a very important role to play in, respect to furthering the arms race. It's very important ethically and morally that researchers are aware of this and that they ask themselves these ethical questions. It is not only the students that raise these questions,-it is also many researchers themselves. 'I think that is very important. Daily: If several of the major universities in America were to ban military research on campus do you think that would have a significant ef- fect on U.S. policy? Wallensteen: That would be a good political statement, yes. I suspect the research would take place in some other laboratory. But I think it is perhaps good if some major institutions would make clear that they are in- volved in the humanistic and civilian enterprize of developing research for bettering humankind as a whole. Daily: What is your opinion of the 'peacekeeping" troops which Reagan had stationed in Lebanon? Wallensteen: I think you have to get at the roots of the problem and that is what the United States is not doing. The basic problem is Israel and the Palestinians. All the problems which have come to take place in Lebanon are a result of the fact that the Palestinians had nowhere else to go. This upset the delicate balance between the various groups in Lebanon. Probably, you can- not solve the Lebanese question without also solving the Israeli-Palestinian. question. Once you have that in place, then you can begin work on the other questions. Actually, I think President Reagan proposed a very good plan back in September 1982. I am surprised that it has not been pursued. This plan argued for negotiations, recognition oi4 Palestinian rights, and negotiations in- volving Palestinians, as well as Jor- danians and Israelis. I can't see that the Israelis or Syrians would pull out of Lebanon because that is all part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It was probably not a very wise thing to put the U.S. Marines in there. But if the United States kept them there as peacekeeping forces they would have been more neutral-giving the U.S. more chance to work things out diplomatically. Now they have become identified with the Lebanese government which, afterall, is a minority government and basing it- self on a -constitutional agreement- which is not really representative of the population distribution of the country. The U.S. has become identified with a political faction and if you are a peacekeeper that is not what you are supposed to do. Deploying American troops in the area is like inviting them to become targets for other groups. It's much more fascinating to attack a big power and it could also be a way to get more support from other big powers. This is why the peacekeeping philosophy ever since 1945 has been that you should not have big powers in- volved as peacekeepers, but rather try and select smaller and more or less neutral countries which do not have particular vested interests. The fact that Reagan did eventually decide to redeploy the troops is probably due to the American public's opposition to the Marine presence. It suggests the public can make an impact on foreign policy. Daily Ph~oto by DOUG McMAHON Peter Wallensteen, a visiting professor from Sweden, preaches the politics of peace. the United States in military terms. The end result of this is probably that the Soviet Union feels more threatened and is now building up its own military strength. Probably it has also created more fear of the United States in the world than respect. America has found a number of friends being much more unwilling to side with her. The invasion of Grenada was not supported by the British, and in the El Salvador conflict many Europeans have a very different perspective on how to deal with this kind of situation. China has 'become somewhat more reluctant to deal with the United States because the United States is so strongly supporting Taiwan. The 'het effect of y this frustration felt in 1980, and the build-up which has followed, is that foreign governments are somewhat more reluctant to turn to the United States. Maybe a change in policy now would perhaps regain some of this lost con- fidence. Daily: Is the U.S. in grave danger of losing its friends in Western Europe because of the deployment of U.S. missiles there? Wallensteen: I think the Europeans see the Soviet Union as a major threat but they don't agree with the American idea of how to respond to this threat. They are more into making economic deals with the Soviet Union and so in that way tie the Soviet Union to a more conciliatory policy by making the Soviet Union more dependent on the West. They want to eliminate the human suffering between the two Ger- manys. With a tough policy you don't get that. If you look at the peace movements, they are very hostile to the cruise missiles and Pershing II missiles Dialogue is an occasional feature of the Opinion Page. . .. .. .. .. . I' Stewart Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Vol. XCIV--No. 117 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, M 48109 .= 7' A --'. ;: / .ishe CG WT / Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Soft on Solomon -.a %L. r I I THE UNIVERSITY regents sat on their tails for a long time trying to decide whether or not to take a stand on the controversial Solomon Amen- dment, a law linking federal financial aid to Selective Service registration. And now that they have finally made a statement of opposition, it is so watered down that it's practically useless. It seemed that the Feb. 17 regents meeting, like past meetings on the topic, was plagued by a lack of clarity. The regents were in the dark about the deadline for signing court briefs to join the University of Minnesota in challenging the law. They were not sure of the actual content of the Minnesota briefs because they only had rough drafts. They were not certain they could include their own limited position against the law with the Minnesota brief. The regents ended up eventually en- dorsing a feeble paragraph saying the law imposes a "significant ad- ministrative burden" on the Univer- sity and inappropriately forces the in- stitution to be an "enforcer of federal criminal law." While these arguments have merit, the University would have actually addressed the main concerns more appropriately by making a stronger statement against the law. The reason for signing court briefs should be to influence the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on whether or not the law is constitutional. The regents' lengthy discussions on the issue, and several key administrators' distaste for the law, indicated hope that they would be inclined to make a more substantial stand against the law. Regent Sarah Power (D-Ann Arbor) expressed her disapproval with the way the whole issue was handled by abstaining on the vote. "The whole thing was not characteristic of the way (the regents) act. I was very dissatisfied with the lack of com- munication on the matter. I was left in a confused posture," Power said. Power said she wanted the University to have the option to do more, such as join the Minnesota brief which includes opposition to the law because it discriminates on the basis of sex and financial status, among other arguments. Power was right. The regents should have opted for the more substantial voice of opposition. ,,,, J J -,i IP I t t', s. LETTERS TO THE DAILY: / Contest not frivolous fun To the Daily: After reading February 8th's Opinion Page, I have serious con- cerns about the editorial staff's apparent obliviousness to the magnitude and scope of issues of sexism. In printing Effman's column "Look alike contest is just frivolous fun," the Daily is effectively endorsing frivolous argumentation. Effman doesn't ven hnther to eniin how he if the protesters had been taking a stand against "beauty." It is astounding that a member of the Daily's staff could have such a limited and specious awareness of women's issues. It seems in- credibly obvious that the protest was against the overevaluation of beauty to the exclusion of all BLOOM COUNTY other attributes a woman might possess. Everything Effman said in his column about the image of the late actress Marilyn Monroe con- cerned her physical appearance. This blatantly sexist perspective on women as beauty objects un- dermines the optimistic attitude taken toward awareness of sexism in the editorial concer- ning the contest, "Laughing at Marilyn." Perhaps we have come a long way . . . but ob- viously not long enough, as that day's Opinion Page unfortunately shows. -Rebecca Pringle Smith February by Berke Breathed _