Power and National Sovereignty

THERE ARE striking similarities between the anti-nuclear movement of today and the anti-Vietnam War movement of a decade ago. In each case deep emotions were generated. Those who protested against American involvement in the Vietnam War were by no means all scoundrels, morons, or Soviet agents. Many were idealists or moralists—some, indeed, were men and women of high intellectual abilities and impeccable motivation. The same is true of the anti-nuclear movement. In both movements one finds the same proliferation of organized groups, many of them tiny and with their own distinctive press (which tends to be of insignificant circulation). In the Seventies as in the Sixties, these groups have tended to coalesce and establish international links. Today, as ten years ago, it is in the clear interest of the Soviet Union to penetrate the respective movements and use them for its own purposes.

If cui bono? were the only criterion, then the subversive machine of the Soviet Union would stand instantly convicted of being the motive force behind the anti-nuclear movement. And certainly there is clear evidence of Soviet involvement; however, it would be misleading to assert that the sinister Russians started it all or that they have achieved full control of the movement. The picture that emerges is a good deal untidier than that.

BC

About the Author

Brian Crozier

Featured Tags

THERE ARE striking similarities between the anti-nuclear movement of today and the anti-Vietnam War movement of a decade ago. In each case deep emotions were generated. Those who protested against American involvement in the Vietnam War were by no means all scoundrels, morons, or Soviet agents. Many were idealists or moralists—some, indeed, were men and women of high intellectual abilities and impeccable motivation. The same is true of the anti-nuclear movement. In both movements one finds the same proliferation of organized groups, many of them tiny and with their own distinctive press (which tends to be of insignificant circulation). In the Seventies as in the Sixties, these groups have tended to coalesce and establish international links. Today, as ten years ago, it is in the clear interest of the Soviet Union to penetrate the respective movements and use them for its own purposes.

If cui bono? were the only criterion, then the subversive machine of the Soviet Union would stand instantly convicted of being the motive force behind the anti-nuclear movement. And certainly there is clear evidence of Soviet involvement; however, it would be misleading to assert that the sinister Russians started it all or that they have achieved full control of the movement. The picture that emerges is a good deal untidier than that.