[The interests of people must be foregrounded in leftist peace
policy. Solidarity with victims of war, violence, and those in need
motivates our stance. Nonetheless, supporting imperialist violence in
the name of leftist values is not a solution.]
[[link removed]]

TEN ELEMENTS OF A LEFTIST PEACE POLICY  
[[link removed]]


 

Claudia Haydt
September 20, 2023
The Left Berlin
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The interests of people must be foregrounded in leftist peace
policy. Solidarity with victims of war, violence, and those in need
motivates our stance. Nonetheless, supporting imperialist violence in
the name of leftist values is not a solution. _

, Photo: PantheraLeo1359531. CC4.0

 

_For some time now, unrest has stirred within left-wing political
party die LINKE.  In addition to discussion of a possible split, the
party has seen a string of conflicts over core themes. Of particular
note is the dispute over peace policy. The virulent concerns are also
addressed at party-internal regional conferences._

_At the south Germany regional conference Claudia Haydt, board member
of the IMI _[The Information Centre on Militarisation] _who is also
active within die LINKE, proposed principles which die LINKE must
adhere to in order to continue operating as a credible party for
peace. She did so in a 10-item list. The drafted list does not intend
to summarise a comprehensive policy, but rather serves as a catalogue
of tasks that will help meet the present pacifist-political demands._

Over the past months, many of those actively engaged with die LINKE
have been repeatedly confronted with the question: _what does this
party stand for? _Such questioning makes ascertaining the hurdles
facing a left-wing political party all the more important in securing
the party’s future. As such, consistently relating the fight against
poverty to the fight for human rights is essential, just as action
against climate change is only effective when combined with
comprehensive social policy.

We fight for the rights of individuals (as with
the _Selbstbestimmungsgesetz  _[1]) and for a strong community in
which wealth is redistributed from the top downwards. Equally so, the
interests of the people must be foregrounded in leftist peace policy.
Solidarity with the victims of war, violence, and those in need
motivates our stances on international issues. Nonetheless, falling
into the trap of imperialist violence in the name of leftist values is
not a solution.

Die LINKE’s programmatic framework decisions, met at the party
convention, as well as the stances of the party executives bear a
pacifist imprint. Unfortunately, public statements by prominent party
members repeatedly and fundamentally contradict this message.
Therefore, it is necessary to answer with clear peace policy messaging
and action. 

In the following, I will list ten items with which we can and must
position ourselves against the present socially hegemonic
militarisation discourse. The following will also largely disregard
issues concerning the geopolitical parameters of current events and
the nature of armed conflict—not because these concerns are
irrelevant, but because there has yet to be a consensus reached within
the party on how to approach them. Here I prefer to concentrate on
areas which correspond to the predetermined party programme and the
shared political actions and positioning, which are possible and
necessary today: 

1. Die LINKE is a party of international order: we uniformly criticise
violations of international law, regardless of whether responsibility
lies with Russia, NATO, Turkey, Germany, or Saudi Arabia. We do not
ignore human death and suffering, regardless of where the affected
live or the colour of their skin.

2. We do not defend warring factions. Wars of aggression remain wars
of aggression, though the aggressors may refer to history in
justifying their actions. Nonetheless, an understanding of the
interests with which war is pursued is worthwhile. Striving to
understand conflict dynamics does not make anyone an ally to the
aggressor. We should not accuse each other of this—insofar as no
attempt to justify violence is being made. The search for peaceful and
sustainable solutions is not realistically possible without the full
picture of a conflict in mind.

3. Military alliances are not collective security systems. Security
systems include potential foes. That is demonstrably not the case with
NATO. NATO was founded as a military bloc and remains as such today.
Thus, NATO cannot be a partner for peace. Simply because Putin’s
invasion is clearly bad, NATO is not suddenly good. Our leftist goal
of a collective security system which includes Russia is difficult to
negotiate at this time. Nonetheless, it is right that we not give up
hope  for long-term, peaceful order in all of Europe. 

4. Every weapon finds its war. Armament kills even long after wars
end.  To say that weapons remain in their intended destinations and
meet their intended targets is to turn a blind eye to reality. Not
only do they make their way from one war zone to the next, but they
also pose domestic problems. That is how, to this day and in this very
country, organised crime is outfitted with weapons from the Yugoslav
wars. For these reasons, we must not allow doubt to arise in the fact
that armament is and remains problematic—arms production and export
alike—no matter where it takes place. Let us halt the mass expansion
of the weapons industry and further pursue the goal of economic
conversion.

5. In addendum to the above: those who build tanks, warplanes and
warships do so with steel and other valuable resources. Steel is
forged in furnaces. Furnaces use unthinkable amounts of energy and
release corresponding amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Conduction
of but also preparation for wars destroy human and natural means of
existence. Additionally, investing in the arms industry creates a
deficit of billions which are desperately needed for socio-ecological
reconstruction. We can either fight the climate catastrophe or arm
ourselves. In other words: those who invest a minimum of 2% of the GDP
in armament have given up on the goal of keeping global temperature
increase below 1.5 degrees celsius. 

6. The global security turning point pursued by Scholz and
his _Ampel_-coalition [2] drives us into an era of mass cuts of
social services. Excluding military spending, we are already
witnessing budget cuts in all areas. Instead of improvement,
care-related professions have seen federal grants slashed; rather than
being salvaged, hospitals are being closed, and there is not enough
money to fund a basic child allowance for families.
The _Ampel_-coalition passes one armament project after another.
Orders for tanks, attack helicopters, and warships are often paid over
a period of ten to fifteen years. The exceptional 100-billion-euro
credit financing these payments will expire in 2026. Thereon, in
accordance with NATO’s 2% spending goal, a remaining 20 billion
euros must be drawn from the general budget—a sum nonetheless
insufficient to cover the costs of the armament schedule. We must stop
this armament madness and the consequential social clear-cutting as
soon as possible.

7. It is no accident that debate surrounding mandatory civil service
has increasingly swept the political landscape as of late. This
obligation, imposed on young people, is intended to fill personnel
gaps in the military and social system, and it would be applicable to
all genders. However, this is a step backwards rather than a sign of
progress. Within the framework of mandatory civil service, young
people are registered, sorted, and—according to evaluation
metrics—groomed to become either cannon fodder or cheap labour in
haemorrhaging health and social sectors. As such, let us take a clear
stance against mandatory civil service and in favour of a more robust
public sector. Moreover, the freedom to evade military service may
also be an important international step toward peace. That young men
who have escaped drafting in Russia cannot rely on finding refuge here
is unacceptable. 

8. An increasingly powerful arms industry has increasingly strong
political influence. The arms industry is among the economic sectors
at highest risk for corruption. After all is said and done, this
matter concerns billions in public funds and comparable amounts in
private profits. The arms industry poses a danger to democracy. The
influence of arms industry lobbying in politics is already far too
great. The more money that flows into armament, the greater the danger
becomes—with Germany being no exception. The Federal Bureau of
Defence Technology and Procurement has, to date, broken its own
anti-corruption rules in 450 cases. Increases in defence programming
and with rules being relaxed last year via the Procurement
Acceleration Act will see a dramatic increase in the political power
of the arms industry if we do not stand in clear opposition to
it—another benefit to the credit of DIE LINKE in Mecklenburg-Western
Pomerania successfully speaking out against Rheinmetall’s settlement
in the region.

9. There are alternatives to global escalation, to the spiral of
armament, and to military confrontation. As long as we are unable to
overcome global exploitation through fair international cooperation,
the path to world peace will prove extremely difficult. As we know,
capitalism carries in it war as a cloud carries rain. However, steps
toward  deescalation are possible today. This includes the
aforementioned strengthening of regional structures for security and
cooperation. It also includes new generations of global disarmament
agreements, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and
regulations halting the use of killer drones and lethal autonomous
weapons. Furthermore, foreign cultural policies and all measures which
build bridges, person to person: financing for peace service, but also
for international student exchange, sufficient funding for
humanitarian help, and financing for international development to at
least meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sadly, the
necessary financial resources to meet these goals are missing—we
will not settle for this.

10. As mentioned previously, DIE LINKE must not allow doubt to spawn
around the fact that it is a, or rather _the,_ party for peace.
Unfortunately, another party has, for the moment, been relatively
successful in selling itself as such in the Bundestag. In doing so,
the so-called ‘Alternative for Germany’ (AfD) is committing
phenomenal label fraud. Although the AfD’s policy against Russia is
less confrontational than the governing _Ampel_-coalition (perhaps
additionally due to their admiration for Putin’s reactionist social
politics), it is, through and through, a military party that places
crucial emphasis on a strong German military with its reactionary
political goals. The AfD’s parliamentary representatives have ranked
among them several military and armament lobbyists, and the party acts
as an antagonist in debates concerning military armament. AfD using
the idea of peace as a justification for their policies is a
perversion, and the same goes for when other nationalist, reactionary
powers use this logic.

True peace policy is international and based on solidarity. On the
spectrum of political parties in the Bundestag, only DIE LINKE stands
for these values. This we must prove — self-assuredly and clearly
— through our stances, actions, and alliances.

FOOTNOTES

1 Proposed policy to ease the process for transgender, non-binary,
intersex, and other gender diverse individuals in seeking name and
gender marker changes.

2 From ‘streetlight’, _Ampelregierung_ is the name given to the
governing coalition of the SPD, FDP and Green party (red, yellow, and
green, respectively) as shorthand.

_This article first appeared in German on the website of
the Informationsstelle Militarisierung
[[link removed]].
Translation: Shav McKay. Reproduced with permission._

_[CLAUDIA HAYDT is a board member of the Informationsstelle
Militarisierung (IMI) and is the vice-president of the European
Left.]_

_The Left Berlin is a community of international progressives in
Berlin. We run an online journalism project hosting a range of
left-wing perspectives in English, as well as collaborating on
progressive campaigns and events in the city. The site is run by a
team of volunteer editors, writers and translators._

_We send out regular weekly newsletters with a digest of leftist
politics around the city. It’s a great way to keep an overview of
what’s happening and how you can stay active regardless of what your
cause is.  This project emerged from the Berlin LINKE Internationals
and maintains close links but the site has editorial autonomy and
attempts to reflect a range of debate on the left._

* peace movement
[[link removed]]
* Die Linke
[[link removed]]
* Ukraine
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]