Are the Chances for Peace Looking Up?

MAN’S search for peace is as old as war itself. Our modern times are therefore no exception. Yet a journalist was recently moved to describe current peace efforts as “an idea whose moment may have arrived.” Why? Are the chances for world peace actually better now than they were in the past? What is so unusual about today’s peace movement?

What Led Up to Today’s Peace Movement

Two atomic bombs dropped over Japan in August of 1945 ended World War II with unexpected suddenness. During the postwar years, the horrors of atomic war prevented the cold war between the superpowers from warming up into a fiery holocaust. As political and economic relations between them and their allies improved, tension decreased. Words like “détente” held out promise of a lasting peace. It appeared that the “balance of terror” was paying off.

Then, almost without warning, détente suffered a setback. The United States failed to ratify the SALT II treaty. The Soviet Union marched into Afghanistan. Difficulties in Poland complicated matters. Controversy arose about building a neutron bomb​—the so-called clean bomb—​designed to destroy people but not property. The United States launched a massive program of military buildup. NATO announced plans to base 572 Pershing II and cruise missiles on European soil. Talk was heard about the possibility of a “limited” nuclear war. The unthinkable​—that a nuclear conflict was winnable—​began to gain acceptance among certain officials.

Some West Germans, living in a country already saturated with more nuclear weapons per square mile than any other nation in the world, were horrified that more were on the way. Terrified of being trapped on a nuclear battlefield between East and West, they and their European neighbors allowed fear to turn into anger. And anger gave vent to action. A new peace movement was being born.

Something Different

Today’s peace movement is different from previous ones in several ways. During the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, there had also been antiwar demonstrations, both in Europe and in America. Some American men even burned their draft cards in protest. But their anger was directed mainly against that war in particular, rather than war in general. Today’s peace movement, on the other hand, is one born out of an almost hysterical fear of nuclear war, out of a feeling that by threatening to annihilate the human family the very existence of nuclear weapons is already wrong and immoral.

Another difference is that of size. Hundreds of organizations have sprung up in Europe and America, differing in makeup and views but united in their agreement that the nuclear-weapon arsenal must be reduced. As a preliminary step toward disarmament, the idea of a nuclear freeze has gained considerable support. This would mean a bilateral​—some even favor a unilateral—​moratorium on the testing, production and further deployment of nuclear weapons by the United States and the Soviet Union. Many Americans, encouraged by leading politicians, are said to be in favor. Cities and towns across the country​—yes, even some states—​have overwhelmingly endorsed nuclear-freeze resolutions.a

This general international outcry for peace finally reached the inner chambers of the United Nations General Assembly. As a result, the Associated Press reported that a few months ago a number of resolutions were overwhelmingly adopted by that august body. These proclamations called for a freeze on the further development and deployment of both nuclear and chemical weapons.

Today’s movement is also different in that it has a broad base. No longer are all the protesters clad in blue jeans. People of all ages, of varied political and religious persuasions and social standings are involved. In Bonn more than 250,000 took to the streets, in Amsterdam upwards of 300,000 and, to coincide with the Second UN Conference for Disarmament, about 700,000 in New York City in June of 1982. And in addition to all the “people in the streets,” says George Ball, former U.S. under secretary of state, “there are enormous numbers at home who feel exactly the same way.”

Outstanding also is the movement’s spontaneity and rapid expansion. Germany’s Der Spiegel called its popularity in the United States “the surprise, perhaps even the sensation of the spring of 1982.” It spoke of Americans “marching for peace, even on the verge of overtaking the fighters for peace in Europe.”

Contributing to this support have been books and pamphlets, like Jonathan Schell’s best-seller The Fate of the Earth, that have alerted people to the horrors of nuclear war. In Britain the BBC screened A Guide to Armageddon, showing the damage a single megaton bomb exploded over St. Paul’s would do to London. Roger Molander, originator of Ground Zero Week in the United States, said of the nuclear threat: “I want people to know exactly what the dangers are, because they will be stunned that no one is doing anything about it, and they will be moved to take action.”

And taking action they are​—and with results. Their effectiveness was noted by a Canadian member of Parliament who said: “The experts have lost control of this issue to the public will.” And the London Times, agreeing, says that it is “pretty obvious that the peace movements have had a major, though delayed effect on Western governments.”

Religious Involvement

Any number of reasons​—political, social and religious—​are given by those involved in the peace movement. Pope John Paul II, while on his 1982 visit to Britain, said: “Today the scale and the horror of modern warfare, whether nuclear or not, make it totally unacceptable as a means of settling differences between nations.” While not all churches have spoken out so strongly, “protests sponsored by churches have played a major role in arousing public opinion,” says Time magazine.

In May of 1982 the Soviet-sponsored “World Conference of Religious Workers for Saving the Sacred Gift of Life From Nuclear Catastrophe” was held in Moscow. Nearly 600 religious delegates from 90 countries were present, representing Buddhists, Parsis, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Shintoists and Christians. A prominent participant was U.S. evangelist Billy Graham, dubbed by one German newspaper as “a kind of emissary of the new American peace movement.”

Considering the peace movement’s undisputed and growing popularity, and in realization of the pressure it can exert upon world leaders, does it not indeed appear as though the chances of peace are looking up?

[Footnotes]

[Blurb on page 4]

Today’s peace movement is one born out of an almost hysterical fear of nuclear war

[Box on page 5]

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS SUPPORT

● In the United States “religious groups in most denominations have contributed moral and political weight [to the freeze movement].”​—Maclean’s

● “The [U.S. bishops] letter called on Roman Catholics and ‘all men and women of good will’ to make peace-making their most important spiritual and worldly goal.”​—New York Times

● “The Catholic bishops in the Federal Republic of Germany and in France have issued a forceful call for the military blocs to enter into disarmament discussion.”​—Süddeutsche Zeitung

● In Germany “the Lutheran Church has thrown its considerable weight behind the antimissile protest . . . Protests sponsored by churches have played a major role in arousing public opinion.”​—Time

● In the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) “thousands and thousands of mostly young Christians are openly taking their stand for peace . . . wearing as an expression of their Christian confession for peace the slogan ‘Swords into Plowshares.’”​—Bonner General-Anzeiger

● “The Interchurch Peace Council . . . is an official organisation of the most important Dutch churches. Its slogan is: ‘Rid the world of nuclear weapons, start with Holland.’”​—The Economist