SfP Bulletin January 1988
Full text version of all articles from PDF edition is also available.
It is important that the pre-Christmas summit should be seen in the perspective of the larger nuclear and disarmament debate. The INF agreement should not be allowed to generate a sense of false optimism that could anaesthetize the deeper involvement of the public in arms control and disarmament issues.
At the same time the momentum towards further and more basic arms reduction, generated in my view in large measure by domestic economic developments in the USA and USSR, should not be lost. Limiting arms is not a substitute for policy, but it is the lead element.
Preventing nuclear war remains the over-riding common interest of all nations — not just of the superpowers. Incremental, steady progress in arms control and disarmament measures will not only serve to reduce this threat, but can build confidence on both sides, especially with the demonstrated willingness of the new Soviet leaders to accept more far-reaching measures of verification.
In his annual report, US Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger (since retired) said he had directed the US Joint Chiefs of Staff “to engage in a rethinking of established practices, because high tech weaponry and new tactics are the only way to compete successfully against Soviet advantages in numbers and perennially high defense funding”. This emphasis inspired the term “competitive strategies”.
General Secretary Gorbachev has offered for domestic reasons the substitution of “cooperative strategies” through arms control, recourse to on — going East/West dialogue and the quest for cooperation through multilateral bodies including the UN, GATT and IMF as well as dialogue between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
Canada’s Defence White Paper with its emphasis on “increased defence spending”, including the continuation of cruise missile testing and nuclear submarines smacks more of Weinberger’s “competitive strategies” than any response to possible “cooperative strategies” which seem to have emerged from the Summit in Washington.
Science for Peace continues to face a challenge of contributing to the greater comprehension among the public that sometimes shows signs of preferring not to think about such a depressing, overpowering and complex issue: How to bring the arms race under verifiable control?
Meanwhile, policies and plans are pursued by the advocates of security through military terror,such as the NATO commitment to first-strike, computer-triggered responses to nuclear weapons and plans for nuclear war fighting, as well as possible weaponization of outer space through SDI.
This all belongs to the ideology of security through balance of military power. To break this vicious circle which has escalated arms races in the past, and to kick the cold war habits which are used to justify this approach, we need to explore the possibilities offered by Gorbachev and the new leadership in the Soviet Union of cooperation on the basis of mutual interdependence in security and economic matters, using the debate on the INF and this partial reduction in nuclear arsenals as a beginning of a significant change in world affairs.
Nobody is more irritating than someone who is determined to be cheerful. Optimism is a state of mind associated with foolhardiness. But pessimism is often conducive to retaining the status quo. So, with some trepidation, I confess to being heartened by the turn of events in world politics, and in that spirit I wish my colleagues in Science for Peace A HAPPY AND CREATIVE NEW YEAR.
- George Ignatieff
Paul LeBlond is Director of Research, Science for Peace
Gerhardt Stroink (Department Of Physics, Dalhousie University, Halifax and member of the SfP Board) replaces Kenneth Dunn (now on sabbatical at UBC) as Associate Research Director for the Halifax area.
I heard recently at a review of the scientific programs of the Bedford Institute that there had already been a plutonium spill in the Arctic, near Thule, Greenland. John Smith,in the Ocean Chemistry Division at the Institute, had been studying this case. We should all remain alert to news on progress of the US-Japan nuclear collaboration and overflight of Canada — plans.
“The comments of Ontario’s minister of industry, trade and technology when he visited Kingston recently show he has not had a close look at the way that the US military R & D functions. He appears to share the common perception that military support of science and technology has helped the development of high technology in the US. He speaks of ‘a steady flow of spinoff technology for civilian markets (that) gives the US a major technological advantage over Canada’.
“In fact, in spite of its massive investment in R & D, the US appears to be falling behind in high technology. High-technology Products are being imported into the US at increasing rates and the US trade deficit is growing. Many scientists believe that military funding has had a deleterious effect on technology development in the US.”
- David Lorge Parnas
From the Whig Standard, Dec. 10. The complete article is available from the Bulletin.
This month, by mail ballot, members of the American Math Society will decide on a policy position vis-a-vis military funding of mathematics research. A complete bibliography of members’ comments since the lengthy discussion began in March, 1986, appears in the January Notices, along with a final section of commentary.
From Thomas Love, Daemen College:
“Dr. Glimm listed several areas where mathematics could be used to help improve life on this planet: models of the spread of disease, food distribution, etc….But there are limited funds available for research and limited numbers of mathematicians to work on them. If the Star Wars program draws the funds and mathematicians, these other programs will not receive the funds or attention they should.”
Daniel Szyld, Duke University:
“It also calls for the AMS to state unequivocally that science is much broader than ‘shock, blast and penetration’, and that efforts should concentrate on funding a broader and more universal concept of scientific inquiry.”
If you do not have access to the AMS Notices, the Bulletin can provide background papers by Chandler Davis and some reprints from the discussion.
In his study of ANZUS and the New Zealand ban on nuclear war ship visits, James W. Lamare (Political Science / Canterbury) found that each side was deeply angered by the actions and words of the other. The US could not understand how an ANZUS partner could meet its treaty commitments and, at the same time, close its ports to the very weapons that (the US contends) guarantee the peace and security of the southwest Pacific. On its part, NZ was dismayed that the US failed to see that nuclear weapons, not treaty obligations, was the issue, and chose to make threats and invoke sanctions against an old and trusted friend. In NZ most of the public rallied behind the government and this approval flowed on to a critical view of the role of the US in its handling of the controversy. The study underscored the point that pressure brought to bear on domestic public opinion from external sources is likely to integrate a people — perhaps at the expense of the interests of the outside party.
From the Journal of Conflict Resolution, Sage, Sept. 1987 Vol 31, #3.
Landmarks: Dec. 11, Moscow….
The signing of the joint US-USSR agreement on cooperation in space research. Envisaged: joint manned and unmanned flights to Mars, and astro-physical and bio-medical studies.
Nouveau Cours à l’Université de Montréal
À l’Université de Montréal le Département de Physique offre depuis cette année un cours intitulé “Science et Guerre a l’Ère nucleaire”. Ce cours est destiné aux non-scientifiques et fait partie du programme du baccalaureat en science politique. Le professeur du cours est Michael Pearson, membre de Science et Paix.
Without whose help
Mr. and Mrs. Frank Hsu, St. Clair Copy & Printing, 558 St.Clair Ave. W. Toronto M6C 1A5, Phone: 656-6031, have worked, often day and night, to print the envelopes in which it is mailed, the labels for the envelopes, and the Bulletin itself in order to meet the first-of-the-month deadline we have maintained for the past several years. Science for Peace printing takes precedence for the Hsus and they have always been willing to undertake the often unusual jobs asked of them, turning out a quality product at a moment’s notice.
Maria Nawrocki, Postmistress at Wychwood Park Substation, helps with the complicated mailings to the chapters each month, helps get not just the proper postage on publication mailings, but the minimum postage thereon.
The Bulletin comes to you first-class because willing members fold and stuff the almost 1000 copies that go out each month, stick on labels and stamp and seal the envelopes. Rita Pytka and Marjorie Wilton will be joined in the new year by Gwen Maunsell and Alison MacLeod, all SfP members.
It is the member publications which you supply that make the Bulletin unique. Your manuscripts are ordered from (and mailed to) all parts of the globe at nominal cost.
Thanks and Happy New Years
- The Editors
Reprinted from The Globe and Mail Dec. 26, David Suzuki, “The Planet: Taking a Step Back from the Abyss”
“What will we remember of 1987?” asks Suzuki. “For me, four events were especially noteworthy:
- The historic agreement to destroy intermediate-range nuclear missiles signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
- The human population on the planet reached five billion.
- The World Commisssion on Environment and Development published its three-year study of the state of the planet.
- The South Moresby region of the Queen Charlotte Islands was set aside as a national park.”
Full text is available from the Bulletin.
Metamorphosis, David Suzuki’s autobiography, is just out, If you can’t find it in your bookstore, write for help.
We landed at the Sheremetievo Airport on time, but the young colleague from the Institute of System Research, who was supposed to take care of me, was nowhere to be seen. After he finally showed up, I asked, “Did you get into a traffic jam?”
“No,” he explained, “I allowed an hour for the usual time it takes to go through passport control and customs.”
“But I got through in ten minutes.”
“That’s perestroika for you,” he sighed.
Was it possible that perestroika had accomplished so much? I recalled a time a few years back when it took me over three hours to go through passport and customs. Moscow was not my destination then. I missed my connection, waited two more hours to be billeted and was charged for the overnight accommodation and fined 6 1/2 rubles for missing a flight. Now — ten minutes to get into the Soviet Union? The dawn of a new era?
Not yet. Petty frustrations still greet the visitor: I ate breakfast at a self-service buffet at the Hotel Rossiya. A sign over a shelf read “For used trays”, but there were no trays. Not just occasionally. Never. Having only two hands, I carried a glass of fruit juice in one and tea in the other. While I went through the line a second time to get food, the tea cooled. Yes, I finally got the idea of getting the tea last, but I could not figure out how to avoid going through the line twice.
When I tried to call the Institute, the number I had used from Canada did not respond. I found out later that one calls one number from abroad, another from inside the Soviet Union. There are two separate channels of communication.
Going through customs on the way out was much more complicated than coming in. Thinking about my previous experiences, I got panicky standing in a line that was not moving, switched to another, only to be told at the gate that it was the wrong line. (Like New York’s JFK.)
My cousin, who was seeing me off, succeeded in getting me through the “diplomatic” line.
Why do I relate these disgruntled tourists’ gripes? For two reasons. First, because for most people who visit the Soviet Union from North America, these frustrations — certainly not unique to the Soviet Union — define for them “how the Soviet system operates”. The second reason is more important. Such petty frustrations are symptomatic of the formidable inertia of the system which Gorbachev and his supporters are determined to overhaul from the ground up. Of course, every little thing by itself is trivial and can easily be “fixed”. But this cannot happen by itself. Some one must identify the bottlenecks in each instance, must know what lever to pull, must have the authority to pull it and must deal with the passive resistance of people set in their ways. Can enough people be mobilized to do this?
And it is not enough merely to streamline the mechanics of everyday living. Perestroika is meant to go much deeper. It is supposed to change “ways of thinking”, a phrase Gorbachev seems to have borrowed from Einstein. How deep can the process go without shaking the very foundations on which the undisputed stability of the Soviet system rests?
The foundations of this stability were set during the Stalin regime by an all-pervasive apparatus of terror. To be inconspicuous, to follow prescribed procedures to the letter, above all, to avoid the slightest hint of initiative or originality was not only a way of surviving but also a way of protecting one’s family and friends. What sort of apparatus is required to undo all this, to instill a sense of personal dignity and social conscience in a population deprived of both for generations?
Clearly, a coercive apparatus is useless to undo the damage perpetrated by a coercive apparatus. Successful persuasion, on the other hand, requires incentives. What sort of incentives can be offered to whom? And what if incentives for some are counter-incentives for others? If a struggle ensues, how likely is it to erupt into violence?
The visitor asks such questions of himself but doesn’t presume to answer them on the basis of a visit. One phenomenon is strikingly conspicuous: the depressing uniformity of public discussion has disappeared. Freedom of speech has become part of Soviet reality after sixty years. Thus a necessary condition for fundamental re-structuring has already been fulfilled. It should not be mistaken for a sufficient condition. People are apparently free to speak their minds. Fundamental problems can be publicly discussed. Solutions may occur and sensible advice may be given and even acted upon. To many this new freedom may be a challenge. It remains to be seen how it is met.
Among those with whom I talked,on one score there is enthusiastic agreement: everyone applauds Gorbachev’s peace initiatives and a feeling of profound satisfaction with the results of the Summit meeting is everywhere evident.
I have always assumed that whatever the stance of the Soviet regime on other issues,its commitment to detente and disarmament has been genuine. To move toward these goals it needed (so it seemed to me) allies in the West, especially in the US. Not in the old sense of “proletarian solidarity”, but among peace-oriented religious groups, liberal intellectuals and grassroots peace movements. It is these groups in the West that attempt to act as a brake on the arms race and to bring about a relaxation of tensions and a winding down of the Cold War. In a recent Conversation D.M. Gvishiani, director of the Institute where I visited, suggested a fourth group — the business community. Many Western business leaders Would like to do business on a large scale with the Soviet Union, and their political weight can be an important input to a peace coalition.
It is precisely these four sectors of the American public that at various times have been alienated by Soviet actions. Instances of persecution and conspicuous hostility toward organized religion, especially minority denominations, have antagonized religious groups. Intellectuals were repelled by the imposition of conformity of thought by the outright lynchings of scientists, writers and artists, by demolitions of entire faculty institutes, even whole branches of sciences during the last years of Stalin’s reign. Business leaders were alienated by militant anti-business rhetoric, grassroots leaders by the suppression of all spontaneous political activity.
If perestroika and glasnost continue to expand, these obstacles to a peace alliance could be removed. The strongest ‘support for perestroika comes, I learned, from the intelligentsia, particularly the students. Support is coupled with clamour for “more”- an escalation to be welcomed Since the generation of positive, feedback IS essential to any re-structuring.
During my week at the Institute of System Research in Moscow, I lectured not only on “Applications of Game Theory to Biology” but also on “Problems of Peace Education”. In between the lectures several interviews And conversations with different groups Were sandwiched, In all the conversations, matters of central interest to Science for Peace were discussed depth. I had the feeling that the Institute is seeking areas of research, directly related to what they tall “mirotvorchestvo”. This means somewhat more than “peace making” — “mir” means “peace”, but “tvorchestvo” has the connotation in English of “creativeness”. The conversations were intense, frank and stimulating and the interviewers went, to the heart of matters discussed.
My strongest impression was that the new freedom is everywhere in evidence. De-Stalinization, which had been stifled after a half-hearted beginning in the 60’s, is now encouraged to go into high gear. A most remarkable film,“Repentance”(now showing in New York), portrays the transformation of a populist leader into a paranoid despot. This is an unmistakable allusion to Stalin. Central to the plot is the dogged determination of a woman who keeps exhuming the body of the dead dictator, insisting that she will keep doing this because “he is still among us”. The dialogue is in Georgian. The film, widely shown in the Soviet Union, is accompanied by a sound track on which the director eloquently reads a simultaneous translation into Russian. Major foreign films such as “Kramer vs. Kramer”, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, “Amadeus”; etc., are widely shown.
Nothing of the past escapes scrutiny.I saw an article in Yunost’, a youth magazine, signed by two graduate students, castigating the teaching of ossified official philosophy. Even Lenin’s ill-tempered Materialism and Empirtocriticism does not escape criticism.
I saw a friendly article on “Old Believers” (a religious community) in Moscow News, a “radical newspaper”, which is sold out a few minutes after it appears in the kiosks. (Russians who read English, I was told, seek out and occasionally find the English edition.)
“Un-persons” have returned from oblivion. There is talk about rewriting history; this time, however, with an anti-Orwellian aim. Jointly written volumes by Soviet and Western authors are contemplated. One with the American Beyond War group had appeared in both Russian and English. Above all, there is a feeling of relaxation and hope, though the formidable difficulties that lie ahead are somberly contemplated and never minimized.
It seemed to me that people were more friendly, more smiling, less dead-pan. They even engaged in lively conversations on the subway escalators. The once ubiquitous slogans on buildings have disappeared — some Muscovites told me they missed them. They had added colour to the city.
This much is in evidence. It is a great deal. It bespeaks a revolution in “ways of thinking” in the making and the change may be irreversible.
- Anatol Rapoport
(Prof. Rapoport was a guest of the Institute of Systems Research of Moscow from Dec. 14-21, 1987.)
Mikhail Gorbachev, Perestroika, New Thinking For Our Country Andthe World. Harper & Row, N.Y.; Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Toronto, 1987.
This remarkable book is required reading for all, regardless of outlook, who are concerned with human affairs, especially Peace and disarmament. It is not presented as a finished, definitive work, but as an effort to talk directly with the citizens of all countries and an “invitation to dialogue”.
It records great pride in the achievements of the Russian revolution. It records, with great frankness, the repression of the Stalin years, deficiencies in planning, economic blunders, inertia in the system and among people.
Perestroika is motivated by “an urgent necessity arising from the profound processes of development in our socialist society” (p 17). In 1985, he reports, a major economic overhaul was started. Scientific and technological progress was accelerated. Glasnost became state policy and the individual was to become involved in this democratic renewal in all its aspects.
Mass initiative, intensification of the economy, utilization of the scientific and technological revolution, priority development of the social sphere, social justice: these are the main objectives of perestroika (pp 34-35). Over 100 pages are devoted to the foundations of these ideas, of their specific applications to various spheres of the economy and groups in the population. Gorbachev sees the growth of democracy and the expansion of glasnost as essential to the revitalization of the economy and the spirit of the people. The author reports initial successes, confesses errors and miscalculations, as well as noting difficulties to be overcome. “Soviet society has been set in motion and there is no stopping it.” But, “We have no ready-made formulas.” (pp. 54-65)
It is tempting to comment further on this part of the book, but Science for Peace Bulletin readers should be more directly concerned with what it all means for peace and disarmament. This is explained in Part 2, “New Thinking and the World”. This part discusses perestroika in the USSR, other socialist countries, the third world, Europe, and concludes with “Problems of Disarmament and USSR-USA Relations”.
“New thinking” may well undergird the shift from the doctrine of strategic parity to the strictly defensive concept of “reasonable sufficiency” (p.204). The Soviet leadership may well have been guided by this in agreeing to dismantle about twice as many nuclear weapons as will the US under the INS agreement initialed at the December Summit and by not taking into account the nuclear weapons of England and France. The “fundamental principle” involved is “Nuclear war cannot be a means of achieving political, economic, ideological or any other goals” (p 240). Gorbachev emphasizes: “There would be neither winners nor losers in a global nuclear conflict… .It is a suicide rather than a war in the conventional sense of the word.”
Already in 1956 the CPSU Congress had declared formally that a new world war was not inevitable, was preventable and global war could be banished from human experience. Now, it is stressed, it must be banished. Gorbachev cites Lenin about “the priority of interests common to all humanity over class interests.” (p. 145)
The need to avoid war is not restricted to nuclear war. Conventional weapons are many times more destructive than during WWII. There are in Europe “some 200 reactor units and a large number of major chemical works. The destruction of these facilities in the course of conventional hostilities would make the continent uninhabitable.” (pp 195-196)
In this hi-tech age an arms race may be artificially created for political and economic objectives. Making the transition from internal to international questions, Gorbachev asks, “…does the West want to overstrain the Soviet Union economically by accelerating the arms trade in order to frustrate the formidable work we have started and force the Soviet leadership to allocate More and more resources for unproductive purposes, for armaments?” He points out (p. 129) that, “Those hoping to over-strain the Soviet Union seem so presumptuous about their own economic well-being. The USA can ill afford to throw away a third of a trillion dollars a year on armaments.”
The questions he raises about the political Intent of an arms race in which the “US sets the tone” give Canadians much food for thought. Do we wish to bind ourselves as hostages to chance? The deterioration through under-funding of health services, universities, scientific establishments, cultural life, welfare, job-creation programmes, aid to developing countries? Do we wish out resources to go to arms instead of to these socially necessary objectives?
These questions I have asked should not create the impression that the book under review is of confrontational character. Its tone is expressed in this sentence from the author’s Conclusion (p 253): “There is a great thirst for mutual understanding and mutual communication in the world. It is felt among politicians: it is gaining momentum among the intelligentsia, representatives Of culture and the public at large.” The book challenges everyone to participate, “to encourage mutually advantageous cooperation rather than confrontation and an arms race.”
“Mr. Da In The Land Of Nyet” is the vay Don Bates describes his impressions of Mikhail Gorbachev after a two hour conversation among the IPPNW Executive Committee and Mr. Gorbachev in June, Vol. 3, No. 3, of Don’s Thoughts On Peace And Security, P. O. Box 608, Victoria Station, Montréal, Que. H3Z 2Y7. $2.50
Available From the Bulletin:
Joint Statement by Reagan and Gorbachev at the Summit in Washington from the Washington Post, 11 Dec.‘87:
Map of sites named in the Summit arms agreement: the US, USSR,Western and Eastern Europe. From The New York Times, 11 Dec ’87.
Exchange of Farewells, Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, The New York Times, 11 Dec ’87.
Yearbook Of World Armaments And Disarmament 1987 from SfPRI, now available from Oxford University Press,200 Madison Ave. NY 10016, USA. $55 US. Send check or money order to Humanities and Social Sciences Marketing Department.
The Int’l Institute Of Concern For Public Health makes available on request ($16) its brief to the Ontario Nuclear Safety Review. Subject of the brief: the human health dimensions of Ontario’s uranium and nuclear industries and emergency preparedness. New address for IICPH is 830 Bathurst St. Toronto M5R 3G1. Telephone: 533-7351.
“Media commentary has questioned the estimated costs of the nuclear-powered submarine program,” reports the Dept. of National Defence. To help clarify the issue,a news release from the Department, Nov. 26, presents a compendium of statements on-the-record in the House of Commons or to the media. Available from DND or from the Bulletin.
Another Forgotten Editor
Cedric Smith (Calton Laboratory, University College, 4 Stephens Way, London NW1 2HE, UK) is one of four editors of a small journal, Colson News, which celebrates the recent discovery (i.e., only 260 years ago) by John Colson, FRS, that arithmetic can be vastly simplified by using negative digits. Augustin Gauchy rediscovered it a century ago. Besides that, it has articles on little-known properties of numbers, puzzles, challenges to suit the beginner and the expert, ways of winning games, historical notes, etc. Vol 1, 21, Vols 2 and 3, 12 each. Make cheques (in sterling, please) payable to Cedric A. B. Smith and mail to the above address.
Leonard Johnson’s A General for Peace (Lorimer, $16.96) is in the bookstores and receiving rave reviews — a hard act to follow for a fellow SfP member who would like to write an own rave review. This is a book whose impact on readers will generate much media attention and provide much grist for conversations. Reader reactions are always welcome here.
Frank Jones’ column about Len and the book in the November 23 Toronto Star points out that “One of the main themes of his book is the total isolation in which senior military people exist, himself included. Of a visit he made to SAC (Omaha, Nebraska, USA) headquarters, he writes: ‘The generals and every one else we met — all otherwise estimable people — lived and played their adult games in a fantasy world in which moral sensibility was a disqualification for service.’”
Computers in Battle: Will They Work? is a publication of Computing Professionals for Social Responsibility, editors: David Bellin and Gary Chapman, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,NY,1987,ISBN-0-15-121232-5. David Parnas is author of Chapter Seven: “Computers in Weapons: The Limits of Confidence”.
For those who followed Elisabeth Mann Borgese’s lucid reportage on the developing Law of the Sea through to the adoption of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, it will be especially welcome news that she has engaged to prepare a Points of View paper for CIIPS: “Towards A World Space Organization”, Nov. 1987, Number 5, Given Science for Peace’s interest in the peaceful use of space, her remarks re Canada and the world space organization are particularly important.
The paper is available from CIIPS or from the Bulletin._
Some reprints of interest
From the New York Times:
- “US-Canada Trade Pact’s Details Listed”
- “Hockey and Missiles”
- “Space Station Accord Reached with Canada”
- “Arias Talk on Getting the Nobel” (Dec. 10) The full text of the address in Oslo by President Arias Sanchez of Costa Rica upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. President Arias spoke in English and the text was issued by the Nobel Foundation.
The Publications Committee has the following members’ books on consignment:
- Thomas Perry and James Foulks, Editors, End I;the Arms Race: Fund Human Needs. $10 Cdn.
- Walter Dorn, Peace Keeping Satellites, $8 Cdn.
The books may be purchased directly from the chairman. Make checks or money orders to Prof. A. Rapoport, University College, University of Toronto, Toronto Canada M5S 1A1.
Defending Europe, editor: Derek Paul, is still available from the national office.$14 Cdn. Make checks or money orders to Derek Paul or to Science for Peace.
To the Editor:
I would like to call to the attention of Bulletin readers this background article on the case of the Canadian being tried in US courts for attempting sale to Pakistan of an unauthorized substance useful to the making of nuclear weapons. I think the article is important because it reminds us that, while we are rejoicing in the first tentative steps being taken for nuclear disarmament, Pakistan appears to be working with equal determination to join the Nuclear Club. The article is of special interest because of the Canadian connection.
- Alison MacLeod Toronto
Reprint available from the Bulletin.)
Professor George Renninger (Physics/Guelph) outlined some of the barriers in cooperation facing scientists and engineers who wished to address global problems. Cooperation in solving problems is usually limited to relatively small numbers of scientists, due to competition for credit and funding. National and economic interests often impede the free flow of research results and.discussions. As well,the translation of proven knowledge into effective policy is a difficult political process.”
— From GLOBAL COOPERATION: NEW APPROACHES, report of a seminar Sept. 14 sponsored by the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
ARCTIC CONFERENCE PLANS can be finalized after a January decision of the SfP Board of Directors as to whether to hold the conference in Yellowknife, NWT or in Toronto. Location will also determine the date of the conference. Tentative plans call for a late October, 1988 date. Members are encouraged to offer opinions before the January 12 meeting date. Program suggestions should be directed to the attention of Franklyn Griffiths, Conference Director.
The Third UN Special Session on Disarmament will take place at UN headquarters in New York in June, 1988.
Snider Lecturer at Scarborough Campus, University of Toronto, in January will be Anatol Rapoport, former professor of mathematics and psychology at the College and now professor of peace studies at University College. Lectures will be in Room H-215 Jan. 13, 3pm: “The Evolution of Cooperation”; and on Jan. 14, 2 pm: “Subjective Aspects of Risk”.
Recipient of the WORLD PEACE AWARD from the World Federalists of Canada this year was VANA, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, or the White Berets, as they dub themselves. Their position paper on the White Paper on Defence is available from the Bulletin.
Human Law and Divine Law: Some Reflexions on their Contrasts and Restraints is title of an address for the service at Christ’s Church Cathedral in Hamilton, Ont., to be delivered by George Ignatieff Thursday, January 7.
Reflecting the growing interest in security issues and aims control in the North Pacific, the successful first conference on the subject sponsored by Australian National University’s Peace Research Centre in August will be followed by a May, 1988 conference at UBC on “Maritime Security and Arms Control in the Pacific Region” and an October, 1988 Pugwash conference on “Peace and Security in Eastern Asia and the Western Pacific”.
SfP members participating as lecturers in the Toronto Chapter February series are Adam Bromke, McMaster University (Feb. 3), Ursula Franklin, University of Toronto (10 Feb.) and Norman Alcock, founder of CPR. (Feb. 24).