Democratic Palestine : 13 (ص 9)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 13 (ص 9)
- المحتوى
-
stand by our side in such an event, as will the Soviet Union and
socialist countries.
In-the case of the second possibility occurring, we will
demand clear abrogation of the Amman accord and cancella-
tion of all steps resulting from it, most importantly the Cairo
declaration. Secondly, the destructive political trend of this
leadership should be brought to trial and accountable. If things
came to that, we would furthermore demand that the compos-
ition of forces within the leadership and legislative bodies of the
PLO be reconsidered, so that the revolutionary, democratic
and nationalist forces are able to defeat the deviationist trend
and prevent the PLO from sinking into a new crisis after two or
three years.
With these answers, we do not risk confusion in the face of
future possibilities. The only thing | fear is that the answers of
the revolutionary democratic forces will not be unanimous with
regard to these possibilities. Furthermore, any serious thought
about the unity of the revolutionary democratic forces requires
a (Common) perception of the future, an analysis of the various
possibilities and phases which might occur, and a perception
of the method of confrontation. To guarantee the success of a
new unity effort, we should agree on how to confront the possi-
bility of the rightist leadership's recognizing resolution 242 and
the right of ‘Israel’ to exist; the possibility of its meeting with the
US, and entering direct negotiations. Our response to each
possibility should be decided.
We hope that through persistent dialogue, we will be able
to reach a joint perception of the future, to form the basis of
strong unity between the revolutionary democratic forces. We
also hope that through dialogue we can solve any contradic-
tions between the two slogans: «Gathering the maximum
number of Palestinian nationalist forces to face the deviationist
trend» (the basis of the PNSF’s formation) and «Uniting the
revolutionary democratic forces.»
Some presented the Gorbachev-Reagan summit
as anew Yalta. How do you evaluate this meeting?
There is no doubt that the Geneva summit was the most
prominent international event, not only of this year, but of the
past several years. Convening this summit became a neces-
sity in order to avoid the extinction of the human race. The
whole world is threatened by the nuclear arms race and its
spreading to outer space as a result of the US military plan
known as «Star Wars».
The summit did not result in essential agreements or
resolve the many pending questions, but the event itself and its
results have a value which must not be underestimated. Prob-
ably the most prominent result is the relative decrease in inter-
national tension, and the agreement on the importance of con-
tinuing mutual contacts. This will be at the summit level with
meetings decided on for 1986 and 1987; it will be between
foreign ministers who are charged with following up major reg-
ional issues; it will involve specialists and advisers to follow up
bilateral relations, cooperation agreements, and talks on halt-
ing the arms race and decreasing nuclear arsenals.
The failure of the summit to reach an agreement on «Star
Wars» and regional questions is basically due to Washington's
aggressive policy. The Reagan Administration persists in the
arms race, militarizing space and igniting «hot spots». During
Reagan's first term in office, the US repeatedly tried to impose
its hegemony in the international arena and achieve clear milit-
ary superiority over the Soviet Union, via the cold war policy,
escalating international tension and using the big stick.
Obviously, this aggressive policy is an expression of the
increasing influence of the military industries in the USA. After
the relative setback experienced by the oil monopolies, the
need to revive the US economy has been addressed by
escalating military production and marketing its products inter-
nationally. It became clear towards the end of Carter’s term
and the beginning of Reagan's, that a new policy was estab-
lishing itself based on demolishing detente, escalating the
arms race and the antagonism towards the Soviet Union.
In the light of this, we did not expect dramatic results from
the summit. Nor did we think that Washington would stop its
aggressive drive. Several US officials went back to using the
aggressive tone which had prevailed before the summit. The
US's acceptance of talks with the Soviet Union is the result of
the firm, principled stand of the latter, together with the socialist
community, the people’s struggle in the world, and the move-
ments for peace, democracy and liberation. We must not unde-
restimate the peace movement which swept across Europe
after the decision to deploy new nuclear missiles. It has played
a role in creating international public opinion opposed to the
missile deployment and the militarization of space. The growth
of this movement has to a certain extent influenced the posi-
tions of the Western European governments. These countries
have displayed discontent with Washington’s military policy
because it constitutes a threat to European security. Moreover,
their economic situations are worsened by the revival of the US
economy and the extraordinary rise of the dollar. This is basi-
cally a result of the aggressive arms policy, the dominance of
the military monopolies and their increasing influence in the
economic and political life of the US.
Washington is well aware that the Soviet Union will not
allow it to achieve the superiority it desires. The US therefore
strives to exhaust the Soviet Union by opening new fields of
competition in the arms race, especially by invading outer
space, hoping to increase the problems of the socialist
economy. However, Washington will sooner or later be faced
by the impossibility of realizing its dreams due to the solidity
and ultimate superiority of Soviet socialism, as compared to
capitalism. Based on this analysis, we do not expect
immediate results from the summit concerning the Middle
East. The Middle East was not dealt with due to Washington's
insistence on dominating the region, and because the Arab
forces are unable to benefit from the principled Soviet support
or from the international balance of forces which is tilting
towards socialism, peace, progress and liberation.
The deceptive description of the summit as a «new Yalta»
is used by the Palestinian and Arab right wing. This stems from
a wrong understanding of the original Yalta. The imperialist
and reactionary media claim that the world was divided up at
that time, and that a new division of the world would be
engineered through the Geneva summit. Those who promote
this misconception want to insinuate that the Soviet Union, like
the US, acts according to its own interests, as does any
imperialist super power. In this way, they make no distinction
between the enemy and the friend. They repudiate the histori-
cal record of Soviet support to the Palestinian and Arab people,
while turning a blind eye to the US's criminal record of con-
Spiracies against our people and national cause.
The results of the Geneva summit serve to expose the
depth of the differences between the USA and the Soviet
Union. They emphasize the Soviet’s adherence to its unswerv-
ing principled stand alongside our people and their just strug-
gle. They expose the US's insistence on pursuing its aggres-
sive policy. These results thus dealt a blow to the theory of a
«new Yalta» and to those who advocate such misconceptions. @
9 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 13
- تاريخ
- يناير ١٩٨٦
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed