Full Ahead, Course Uncertain

Flush with success, antinuclear groups still lack direction

It was an altogether impressive turnout in New York City’s Central Park.Upwards of 700,000 people assembled for a festive day of speeches byantinuclear activists and pop music by antinuclear performers. “Thatwas America out there,” said New York City Parks Commissioner GordonDavis. But what did America want?

Virtually everyone shared an acute concern about the prospect of nuclearwar. An overwhelming majority favored an immediate U.S.-Soviet freezeon the development of nuclear arms. But beyond those points ofagreement, the consensus was shaky. Some groups urged continued publiceducation about the dangers of nuclear arms, but proposed no particularpolitical action. At the other extreme, a few argued blithely forunilateral U.S. disarmament. Thronging along, too, were dozens ofdivergent factions seeking to hitch a ride on the antinuclear bandwagonto promote just about everything from Government day care funding toAfrican development.

The broad appeal of the antinuclear arms movement, which up to now hadbeen its main strength, may have become its most serious weakness. Withso many constituents to please, the movement seems uncertain about whatto do next. There is a vision of ultimate success, of course: thedismantling of all the world’s nuclear arsenals, no more threat ofannihilation. With this dream no sane person can quibble. Where thedisagreement comes is over what workable, real-world arms controlmeasures will be acceptable and, even more, how to achieve them.

Hundreds of towns and states have endorsed practically identical freezeresolutions, all of which call on President Reagan to pursue such atreaty with the Soviet Union. In California, campaigners for abilateral freeze initiative, placed by petition on November’s ballot,have an advertising budget of $1.2 million. Yet all the widelysupported antinuclear initiatives are almost certain to be onlysymbolic outcries, since neither the House nor Senate is likely to heedthe calls for an immediate nuclear freeze. In any case, Reagan isadamantly opposed; he believes such an arms control gambit would be asimplistic quick fix, one that would, moreover, only lock in a putativeSoviet nuclear advantage.

Even some allied with the movement are unhappy about the obsession witha simple freeze. “We can’t just say, ‘We want a freeze,’ and pray thatwe get one,” explains Ezekiel Emanuel, a second-year student at HarvardMedical School. “We have to articulate a position on what the next stepis in the long process of ending the arms race.” Roger Molander, theformer White House strategic analyst who heads Ground Zero, ascrupulously non-partisan antinuclear educational campaign,understands that it is hard for an impassioned mass movement toaccommodate either slow practical progress or technical complexity.”What people are looking for,” says Molander, “is someone who will say,’Here is the path to the solution to the problem.’ But it’scharacteristic of this problem that thoughtful people don’t know theanswer yet.” To invest so much energy and hope in campaigns for afreeze, he believes, is a bit misguided. Says he: “There are those whosay the whole house of cards will fall into place once we have afreeze. That is clearly not true.”

Yet the very simplicity of the freeze proposal has helped attract somany millions of sympathizers. More precise or complicated nuclear armscontrol prescriptions—shelving plans for land-based cruise missiles inEurope, say —would not make inspirational rallying cries. And althoughthe movement’s freeze resolutions call for “bilateralism,” the dauntingdifficulties implicit in U.S.-Soviet negotiations are rarely given morethan glancing, wishful consideration. Says Molander of Ground Zero’s1983 plans: “Our next step is to approach the problem of how you goabout dealing with the Russians.”

Molander may be the single most visible (and thoughtful) leader in thenebulous movement, but there is no individual or organization incommand. And there are already signs of strain. The day after theCentral Park turnout, Moorhead Kennedy, one of the 53 Iranian hostagesand now the director of a peace institute at New York City’s CathedralChurch of St. John the Divine, was heckled by anti-nuclear activists ashe delivered a lecture on disarmament. He had expressed some warinessof the “extremely seductive” promises that arms control “is an issuefor ‘the people,’ that ‘the people’ will take peace into their ownhands. Forgotten in this simplification,” he said, “is that governmentsexist. And it is only they who dispose of these weapons.”

It is too soon to tell if the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, whichbegin next week, will blunt the urgency of the movement. But for now,agitation and consciousness raising continue. Last Monday in New YorkCity, nearly 1,700 protesters staged sit-ins—and werearrested—outside the U.N. offices of seven nations: the U.S., theU.S.S.R., China, Britain and France, all of which acknowledge havingnuclear weapons, and Israel and South Africa, which are suspected ofhaving them. The 16,000-member Physicians for Social Responsibility isplanning a “national day of prayer” in October. The 2,000-memberLawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control will, in August, try toconvince the American Bar Association convention to support a modestresolution urging a nuclear nonproliferation treaty and a moretemperate U.S. negotiating posture. United Campuses to Prevent NuclearWar, which claims members at 500 colleges, plans to grill congressionalcandidates in the fall about their arms control stands.

Otherwise, followers are simply urged to spread and keep the faith. LastWednesday, Activist Dr. Benjamin Spock spoke in Washington. “Don’t eversay that you sent a letter, or went to a demonstration, and nothinghappened. Keep it up,” he counseled. “It will happen.” Perhaps it will.But so far, apart from an unimpeachable opposition to nuclear war, themovement is far from determining just what “it” ought to be. —By KurtAndersen.

Reported by Gary Lee/Washington and Bruce van Voorst/New York

Tap to read full story

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com