At the last national conference of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Joan Ruddock was elected national chairperson. Her background is one of Labour Party politics. She has been active in the Party for 11 years. She became interested in CND, in a major way, when the decision was taken to site 96 Cruise missiles at Greenham Common, near Newbury, Berkshire, which was in the constituency for which she stood as a Labour candidate at the last election. Brian Heron interviewed her about her views on CND, its policies, and how she sees its development over the next few years.
How would you account for the tremendous support for CND at the present time reflected in the official support of the Labour Party and the TUC for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Why should this occur in the 1980s and not in the 1960s?
I do not think anyone is sure of the answer. We see it as a consequence of various decisions having been taken within NATO which have allowed us as a campaign to put to the people of the [illegible]. In the 1960s it was possible to argue that nuclear weapons were immoral, it was also logical for many people that there should be a balance between the two sides and that such a balance deterred us from [illegible]. I think many people were prepared to accept that argument and therefore rejected CND. This time round we have been able to say that is not the game that the superpowers are playing. We are not in the business of nuclear deterrents. We have been able to demolish that very powerful argument. People are now seeing the logic of our argument that it is not possible to defend yourself successfully with nuclear weapons.
What convinced you that CND can be successful?
I cannot say that it will be successful. I can only say that the indications are there. The government seems at a loss to come up with any credible policy which demolishes our argument. So I am confident that if we can get the kind of growth we have seen in the movement, the kind of understanding of the issues we have among our grassroots supporters, then there is not at the present time any reason to believe that we [illegible] continue this growth. If we maintain the growth then it is possible to win, because we depend on creating a very, very, large movement which has got significant support in the trade unions and that in itself will be powerful enough to change public opinion and ultimately challenge government policy.
Many in the movement, and outside for that matter, would argue that the nuclear strategy of the government is part and parcel of its foreign policy and that to tackle that is to challenge one of the key props in the existence of the government?
You are absolutely right. You cannot separate nuclear weapons from the whole apparatus of foreign policy, from the question of alliances and even from the Cold War. So if CND is to win it is actually going to have to put itself in a position whereby its very action of saying we will not have nuclear weapons, and getting a government prepared to accept that policy, opens up our society to major change and poses a very great threat to the whole establishment.
How do you see the decisions of the recent CND conference fitting into this perspective?
I think that the important decisions are the ones about establishing workplace branches and making a priority of work within the unions. That clearly can take us forward if it is a success. There is no doubt that the movement wants to do it and if we are successful in getting rank and file support, and we have that support at the top, then that makes it possible for us to look at a campaign of real opposition so that, for example, we could have workers unwilling to participate in the processes associated with nuclear weaponry whether it is building and transporting them or with communication systems.
But what about the argument that often comes up that in a period of such economic strain it is unrealistic to expect the workers at the base to take action on such an issue. Is it not the [illegible]?
I think it depends on whether the workplace branches are able to explore fully the question of alternative uses for their workplaces and whether they can look into transforming their industry for peaceful use. As you know some people have tried that with very little success. It seems very good on paper and Lucas Aerospace is a prime example but in practice it has been impossible to make progress. I am encouraged because I know armaments workers. I live very close to Aldermaston and RAF Burghfield where they make nuclear warheads and I know for a fact that there are workers there talking of using their skills to do other things. If the workers felt that there was some way in which such a transformation would occur, if they felt that they were part of a campaign that would win, then I think they would be prepared to take the action. But it would not be action of a negative kind. For them it would be action to stop one process and start another.
In the end do you think that it is going to come down to finding a government which is prepared to make these sort of transformations and what do you think the prospects are of the Labour Party forming such a government?
The movement needs the conference decisions of the Labour Party to be implemented and we need that to happen whether the Labour Party forms a government or not. We need to feel that the leaders of the Labour Party actually mean to put into practice what they have said. We need the Labour Party to go to the electorate on a unilateral platform next time round. If you ask me whether they will then I am now far less sure. In fact [illegible] pessimistic as compared to my optimism of six months ago.
[illegible] unilateral disarmament against [illegible] governments. Where [illegible]?
Definitely on unilateral disarmament. As I understand it multilateral talks have not been very successful. They are all about arms control; they are not actually about moving one single weapon from anywhere; they are not about reducing the numbers in any significant way. My priority, like I think most CND people, is definitely for unilateral disarmament.
What is your view of the argument that a confrontation in Poland actually threatens world peace? Is that a valid argument and where do you stand?
I think the struggle in Poland is certainly a threat to world peace because I don't think anyone can be sure how that struggle can be contained and by that I mean, will the people of Poland and the Polish government be able to sort it out for themselves and come to some peaceful solution. Clearly if they are not able to do so or the Soviet Union feels they are not doing so, there is a possibility of Soviet intervention. Unfortunately I think that there are hawks in NATO who would not be displeased by Soviet intervention because it would then reinforce all their arguments about the need for negotiating constraints. They will ensure that economic sanctions are imposed on the Eastern bloc and frankly I think none of us know where that might end.
I want to pursue this a little because I think there is a certain dangerous ambiguity. From the standpoint of an international peace movement Poland must look very dangerous, but from the standpoint of the Polish workers they are involved in a justified and reasonable struggle. The point is that if the international peace movement does not understand how these two struggles are linked then we could get a situation where people simply turn their backs on such struggles and say 'well never mind the rights or wrongs of them, but the fact that they are going on means a threat to world peace and therefore we are not in favour of them.'
My argument is very simply that the actions of the Polish workers actually takes forward the movement to ban nuclear weapons, because they attack the structures which reproduce that drive for nuclear competition. As a peace organisation we have felt it necessary to limit ourselves to saying that it is a national struggle, that it concerns the Polish people themselves, that the most important thing from our point of view is that it should not involve the superpowers; that it should not provide the battleground or the excuse for a limited nuclear war in Europe. I really don't feel that we can say that we, as a disarmament movement, can just support the movement of workers in Poland because we think they fight for good things and I don't think the argument necessarily follows that it is a challenge to the blocs. I haven't heard that they are calling to disassociate themselves from the Warsaw Pact.
They are not. I wanted to use it as an example to show ...
But it is such a tricky example, that is the problem. We are making value judgements which I am really not in a position to do, I think the campaign must be extremely careful not to just say 'we support this organisation or that movement because we know it is right'.
[illegible] a situation in which [illegible] back the initiatives of the US ruling class and limiting their capacity to operate..
Could I interrupt you there. I disagree with you completely. I think there is no evidence that it has set back the Americans. In fact, quite the contrary, when I was in the States this year I felt that it was very much because of their lost faith in the Vietnam [illegible] a territorial sense but I don't think it has set back the ideas that they have in military strategy.
Your electoral platform mentioned the importance of the involvement of women at every level in the campaign. What is your reaction to those who call for a separate women's campaign?
I think that there is a place for women's initiatives and women's campaigns particularly at local level. Personally I would be very sad if it was felt that there was a need for a [women's movement] to be set up nationally devoted to exactly the [same aims as] CND. I think that would detract from the progress we are making. But at the local level there are many occasions when women can get together to do things as women.
Do you see a positive discrimination inside the campaign in favour of the representation of women at every level?
Yes. The positive [illegible] that we implement at the moment is to draw people's attention to the fact that women are discriminated against in the normal functions of society and that CND is no exception. Many people are not aware of that. So they need to be told what is [illegible]. We have been doing that in a [illegible] way. I have written a letter to each regional secretary saying 'each region has got five representatives, please make [sure] that you are not discriminating against women' and we have actually hinted that perhaps out of the five, three ought to be women and not two. There is some indication that this has been taken seriously and so the southern region has elected five people to the national council and indeed there are three women. My election was also part of that, there is no doubt about it. People wanted me, I think, because I was a woman.
Broadening out the question of involvement in the campaign there has been some controversy and discussion about the fact that at the recent conference and demonstration there was very little representation at the base of the unions. What special measures are required to make the campaign more accessible to this key sector?
The campaign is accessible. It is rather the other way round — to what extent are the unions accessible to us as campaigners, and it is quite difficult to get into the unions at the grassroots if you are not already in it. I have had no difficulty in being invited to speak to local union branches and we have organised showings of 'The War Game' with lots of participation but that is because on a local level I am known to the union movement, but for many of our groups there is not that close contact. They do not know who the people are. They find great difficulty in making contact.
It is fair to say that many of the local CND speakers are perhaps a little apprehensive about the kind of reaction they may get if they go along to union branches. So we have to do a lot of planning and preparation. This is something we are now trying to work on and there is a special section of CND called Trade Union CND. They have of necessity had to operate at the top — at the level of going to union conferences, getting resolutions passed, talking to union leaders and winning affiliations. We have done all that very successfully. We have now got to work at getting the grassroots involvement. That is much more important and difficult.
Which social forces must the campaign rest on to be successful? Is it open arms to everybody, or are we trying to prioritise our relationship with certain groups in society?
There is no doubt that we have an open arms policy. Anyone who wishes to join is encouraged to do so. To date most of the campaigning at local level has been aimed at the general public. It has been to go out on the streets, leaflet the public, call meetings and try to appeal to the public on an equal level. As I said I want to see us trying to put the conference resolutions into more specific, practical, form and that will mean saying that we do want to get more union activists involved. Also there is a lot of work we need to do in the schools. But none of us in the national campaign are in a position to dictate what individual groups should do. Every group must work within its own locality and determine its own priorities. All we can do is say we see great value in trying to implement our conference resolutions.
What about the view that says — of course the campaign should have open arms, but it is the unions which is where, ultimately, we need to seek support because of the future fight we are going to have?
As you know the conference decided that work within the unions was not the priority for CND but it was a priority and you only have to look at the defeats and setbacks the union movement has had over the last few years to realise that you cannot just expect one part of our society to determine policy for the rest of society. I think the struggles that brought down the Labour government, in the so-called 'winter of discontent', indicated that you cannot just use industrial muscle if you cannot take the people with you. I think that CND cannot just say we will get the unions to sort this out. CND has to say that trade unionists have an important part to play through being organised in unions, in the workplaces, but that we must be a campaign that is striving for mass public support whether within the union movement, or without, because I do not believe that any part of society will win it by itself.
I want to take up one of the arguments that came up at the conference. At the last CND demonstration there was a huge representation of youth. This was not particularly reflected in the conference delegates. Some people argue, and I agree, that youth must find their own feet within CND and have a self-governing organisation which allows them to determine their own constitution, age limits, etc. This was rejected by conference. Surely that is an example of CND erecting a barrier to a radical force for change?
I agree with the conference decision. I think a lot of the controversy simply centres around the age limit and it seems to me to talk about people in their mid-twenties as youth is very difficult to accept. Most of the local groups which are campaigning throughout the age spectrum need people who are in their mid-twenties. To separate off young adults into a separate campaign seems not to make sense. I would question why this has become such a contentious issue. I think it is perfectly valid for young people to get together as their own campaign but again it is difficult to say why we need such a separate organisation if indeed the aims are identical.
Finally what will be the political effect in a society like Britain of forcing unilateral nuclear disarmament — how would it alter society and people's attitudes?
The effects could be immense. I am sure this is why we are so fiercely opposed. If people were able to overturn government decisions of this kind then they would learn something about democracy and about the power they have as people. It would question the whole position of government — particularly in terms of secrecy and power being imposed on the people. So if we were to win this campaign, for the first time in their lives, very large numbers of people would have been taught political lessons. And once they have learned those lessons there is no telling what they might demand for the future in terms of society and the political system.