The Greens have had a very strange outlook on military action for some time now. The only reason they get support in elections is because liberal voters who don't keep up with events see a Green vote as their once every four years chance to feel as if they are doing something for the environment.

Dan,

As far as I know the Green Party has never claimed to advocate the abolition of the military...its stance has always been to acknowledge that a small military force is needed for self-defence in the world that we live in, and that under a UN which actually attempted to uphold codes such as the Declaration of Human Rights, peace-keeping activities might be justified. Fair enough if you don't agree with that, but its not as if Greens claim that they are for the total abolition of all armies and military expenditure. Their position would only be weird if they claimed one thing and did another, which i don't really think they do.

Matt

I am replying as one of the authors of the Draft Defence Policy being considered by the Green Party at present.

Dan is right to point out that the Green
Party is not (and never has been) a pacifist party,
even though there are many of us that would describe
ourselves individually as pacifist. Most of the rest
of his analysis of our (evolving) policy on peace and
defence is, however, selective and flawed.

The British Greens have no hestitation in distancing
ourselves from the German Greens in government
supporting action in Afghanistan, and we unreservedly
oppose ALL bombing that kills civilians such as the
American action in Afghanistan.

We are providing a vision of armed forces operating
with a complex and sensitive role on a *much-reduced*
budget, geared towards a defensive stance. The UN does
indeed need urgent and major reform, but it would be
wrong to characterise it as a puppet of the US regime.
It is the US' inability to use the UN (and even NATO)
for its own purposes that has meant that it, with the
UK, has gone its own way in its' illegal bombing of
Afghanistan, and its horrific threat to the stability
of the world in its threat to Iraq.

We explicitly talk of immediate nuclear disarmament (as do all Green Parties worldwide), and of applying significant diplomatic resources into achieving the urgent goal of a nuclear-weapon free world.

This policy does not contain in itself a sophisticated
analysis of the neo-liberal agenda because unlike many
other papers and organs of discussion within the
party, the purpose of our policy manifesto is to
provide the policy framework for REALISTIC ACTION in
the world. I might, though, point to one sentence
within the policy: "Much international conflict today
arises directly or indirectly from the abuse of power
by the US, its allies, agencies and companies"
(PD100).

We did pass separate emergency motions on nuclear weapons, Iraq, the War on Terror and Israel, not mentioned by Dan, who was probably unaware of them (demonstrating the dangers of making such strong criticism without being at the conference). The level of interest displayed at this party conference in international security was unprecedented.

The Green Party explicitly rejects the US-led
coalition against the 'axis of evil', and I have some sympathy with those referring to the Bush-Blair-Sharon axis as one that might be termed evil, though I would not use that word myself. The Green Party will continue
to campaign against all efforts to militarily and
economically dominate the majority world, and press
for Britain to act as a co-operative force for good in
the world. This means stopping subsidies to arms
exports, and tightening up hard on those arms exports
leaving Britain.

However, the vast majority of people, including those
on many anti-war rallies are not pacifists. Some, such
as the Socialist Workers, believe in armed struggle
against the imperial powers, which would be a
bloodbath waiting to happen. The Green Party believes
in taking society with us by providing security
against the worst excesses of terrorism without
undermining human rights and harming the innocent, while
building a truly just and equal society at peace with
itself and the planet.

I won't attempt an analysis of the Green Party position here; suffice it to say it sounds a lot like the confused Labour Party defence/peace policy of the 1980s.

But look, Socialist Workers do NOT advocate armed struggle. Where people have turned to arms in the face of imperialism, we will not condemn them; but we don't think a military strategy can work, ie. overthrow capitalism.

We believe the only way to create a better world is for workers to organise globally to take control of production and distribution. And you don't need guns for that.

Herr Joschka Fischer
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Adenauerallee 99-103
53113
Bonn
Email  joschka.fischer@mdb.bundestag.dbp.de

26 September 2001



Dear Joschka,

It saddens me to have to write a letter like this to the leader of another Green Party, but I feel bound to do so. Your unique position as Foreign Secretary in Germany's Cabinet means that the media see your position as one
officially supported by Greens in Europe.

Current Western war fever does not deserve the support of any Green Party, least that of one elected to such a high position in Government.. If the Greens in the USA are calling for peace, how can the Greens in Germany
support President Bush's crusade for vengeance?

We were all appalled by the terror attacks of 11 September. Surely we Greens condemn such brutality as wholeheartedly as anyone. But also, we condemn the aggressive, unprincipled, militaristic behaviour of US governments, which we've witnessed for decades. This has ranged from covert operations to topple a democratically-elected government in Chile, and mass assassinations in Vietnam, and illegal covert attacks on ships in Nicaraguan ports, and the training of Contra terrorists, through support for dictators like Suharto despite his genocide in East Timor, through the carpet-bombing of Baghdad, to Bill Clinton's attack on a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. You must know
that up to a million people have died in Iraq because, having devastated the country's economic infrastructure, the USA is imposing a kind of siege warfare euphemised 'economic sanctions.' Yet this is the country whose president has suddenly discovered the 'sanctity of human life' and is whipping the world into war fever to justify yet another attack - this time on a country where over five million people are currently on the brink of
starvation. Surely Die Grunen and yourself in particular must oppose this?

Two years ago you supported NATO's attacks on Yugoslavia. Aerial bombardment included deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure, left huge areas peppered with depleted uranium, killed 1,500 civilians (including children)
and devastated the lives of millions. That war transformed NATO from a defensive alliance into a self-appointed military policeman prepared to act offensively, to breach numerous counts of international law, supposedly to
protect human rights in Kosovo (although many including some of the military predicted, correctly, that it would be entirely counter-productive in that respect). I would hope that we all have learned from that episode.

We're well aware that Greens in office may sometimes have to make deals to ensure concrete progress towards a Green society. This is necessary pragmatism while we're gradually building wider support for our principles and policies generally. But some things are not for compromise. When you
support disproportionate military action, when you support the military hegemony of the USA, you are damaging the Green Parties and the Green cause in more countries than just Germany. You get more coverage in UK newspapers
than we do, so the supposedly 'Green' voice which is being heard is yours, supporting violent escalation. Your support for 'bombing Yugoslavia back into the stone age' may have cost us support in 1999, and doubtless cost Die
Grunen more. Your current stance in support of President Bush's crusade is surely a factor in the loss of 40% of your support in Hamburg, and we hear that morale in your party is at an all-time low. Green parties were formed
on the principles of non-violence, peace, justice and ecology and it is upsetting for many to see the first German Green Foreign Minister appearing to abandon the very principles upon which Green Parties were founded.

Joschka, if the Greens give up the role of pressing for peace, and of opposing the US tendency to tear up international law whenever the interests of consumer-capitalist corporations and US military hegemony demand it, then who is left to argue for a saner world?

Please take a stand on this issue. The forces closing in on Afghanistan are wildly disproportionate to the task of bringing terrorists to justice. We are on the brink of another human tragedy, in which civilian lives will be
sacrificed on the altar of US military dominion. There are huge sections of the European public appalled by this, but which party can speak for them if not the Greens?
The public must be shown the way forward, and you are the person in the best position to do this. Oppose escalation as both immoral and counter-productive. Seek justice through international law, not by abandoning it. And get aid, not troops, into Afghanistan, before millions
starve to death.

Yours in peace

Penny Kemp
Chair of the Executive, Green Party of England and Wales