Green parties and Bush's 'war on terrorism'

October 10, 2001
Issue 

BY JIM GREEN

Green parties around the world have differing opinions on planned US-led military strikes on Afghanistan in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Most have expressed concern about military attacks, but without opposing them outright.

The German Greens, junior partner in a coalition government with the Social Democratic Party (SPD), is the most gung-ho of all the Green parties. The September 17 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported that German foreign minister and Greens leader Joschka Fischer warned of "raising the danger of escalation by doing nothing".

Immediately upon his arrival in Washington on September 19, Fischer assured the Bush administration of Germany's "unlimited solidarity" with its war drive.

A resolution promising multifaceted support to the US, including "military support", passed through the German parliament on September 19, opposed only by the Party of Democratic Socialism and four (out of 46) Green MPs.

A September 13 statement from the German Greens council and parliamentary group said that German support for the September 12 NATO council resolution was "very difficult" but "we cannot oppose the employment of the joint-defence-situation". The NATO resolution requires member states to assist the US in its "war on terrorism", including military assistance if necessary.

The statement said the German Greens' support for the NATO resolution "does not revoke the responsibility on the part of Germany to decide for itself, in keeping with constitutional rules and parliamentary provisos, what type of assistance with what means it considers necessary to reestablish and maintain security".

However, the SPD-Greens government took the decision to support the NATO resolution without consulting parliament. Moreover, according to a September 19 report in the British Guardian, both Fischer and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder have hinted they will break party ranks in support of Bush's "war on terrorism" if their parties do not support them. Fischer made a similar threat in 1999 in relation to NATO's bombing campaign against Serbia and Kosova.

The Greens' parliamentary group indicated it would support a "commando action" in which German soldiers participated, but not a large-scale bombardment, according to a September 23 FAZ report. The paper reported on October 3 that Kerstin Muller, parliamentary co-leader of the German Greens, said that it was part of the Greens' program that "limited, targeted military action is legitimate in the fight against terrorism".

The October 3 FAZ quoted Schroeder saying that the US had asked specifically for cooperation with intelligence, protection of US installations in NATO countries, and unlimited airspace access rights. He refused to say whether Germany had been asked to provide direct military assistance.

Internal opposition

A September 13 FAZ report said that "Fischer, even though he is the foreign minister, plays a domestic political role in Mr. Schroeder's calculations". It added that "Incorporating the Greens in the government widens his [Schroeder's] social consensus". In other words, Fischer's role is to co-opt dissent to the "war on terrorism" within and beyond the German Greens.

However it is doubtful whether the German Greens' leaders are capable of co-opting dissent any longer. Federal environment minister and Green member Jurgen Trittin said in an interview with Stern magazine that there was "enormous dissatisfaction" within the grassroots of the party, all the way through to mid-level party functionaries.

The German Greens' state branches in North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Thuringia, Essen and Saxony are demanding that the federal leadership of the party oppose German military participation in any US-led war.

Since becoming a partner in the coalition government, the Greens have supported German military involvement in the US-led NATO military operations in Serbia and Kosova, supported the militarisation of the European Union and abandoned their advocacy for the dissolution of NATO. In February, Fischer refused to condemn US and British bombing raids on Iraq, instead expressing his government's "understanding" of them.

The transformation of the German Greens into a party of war partly explains its declining popularity. In Hamburg on September 23, where the Greens govern in coalition with the SPD, voters handed the party its 16th consecutive defeat in a state or national election.

Peter Strutinsky, a spokesperson for the Kassel Peace Forum, a campaign group organising protests against the "anti-terrorist" war and Germany's involvement in it, told the September 23 FAZ that many people who are disappointed by the Greens and the SPD are turning to the Party of Democratic Socialism. "Sympathy for the PDS is growing", Strutinsky said.

The Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW) wrote to Joschka Fischer on September 27 urging him to withdraw his "unequivocal" support for US military action and not to support "crusader" Bush.

"If the Greens in the USA are calling for peace, how can the Greens in Germany support President Bush's crusade for vengeance?", GPEW chairperson Penny Kemp asked. Fischer's pro-war position has damaged Green parties and the Green cause both in Germany and abroad, she added.

A September 16 GPEW statement called on the governments of the US, UK and all other countries to "step back from immediate military action". A spokesperson said in a September 20 statement, "We insist that the lives of innocent people must be spared in any military act against those responsible for the terrorist attack".

A September 22 statement from the GPEW said, "We are confident that sufficient intelligence can be gathered to allow the international courts to prosecute whoever is responsible for the attacks of September 11. If it can't be, then carrying out reprisals against innocent bystanders is morally indefensible before civilised people, and is not an acceptable alternative."

The Green/European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament has adopted a common position on the US war drive. The group's statement, released on September 28, reflects differing opinions and is somewhat contradictory. It "recognises the United States' right to self-defence according to article 51 of the UN-charter" and "supports all efforts to bring the perpetrators of these outrageous attacks to justice".

On the other hand, the Green/EFA group "firmly rejects military actions that can cause the deaths of innocent civilians" and "considers the invoking of article 5 of the NATO treaty as a sign of solidarity [which] can not and should not be interpreted by the US government as a blank cheque for any military action".

The Green/EFA group says that the international court in The Hague is the legitimate institution before which to indict and prosecute those suspected of responsibility for the September 11 attacks, and urges expansion of the mandate of the court to explicitly combat terrorism.

The Green Party USA (GPUSA) takes the strongest line against military actions of all the Green parties surveyed.

The GPUSA said in a September 13 statement, "we will not join in calls for military retaliation, which will only ratchet-up the misery and death toll, both abroad and here at home as waves of anger and despair will flood against our shores in the form of new attacks".

The GPUSA issued another statement on September 13 arguing for "just and positive alternatives" to Bush's "war on terrorism". The statement includes demands to withdraw support, military or otherwise, for US-based corporations choosing "to take risks by attempting to steal another country's natural resources"; stop US military incursions and blockades of needed food and other goods anywhere in the world; stop US arms sales to the world; and bring all US troops home from all over the world.

US Greens

The Green Party of the United States (GPUS), formerly known as the Association of State Green Parties, split from the GPUSA in 1991 and is more focused on electoral politics than GPUSA. The GPUS opposes the indiscriminate use of military strikes but does not unequivocally condemn them. A September 11 statement says, "Greens appeal for a careful response, after investigation, from the White House, and insist that rash and violent retaliation will only increase the loss of life, especially of the innocent".

"The Green Party supports our nation's right to defend itself and its people", said Robert Franklin, treasurer of the GPUS, in a September 20 statement. "But a massacre of civilians, in vengeful retaliation, will put us at the same level as the terrorists, will not eliminate the threat of the international network that perpetrated the attacks, will erode international sympathy for the US, and will encourage more people in Middle Eastern nations to join or support violent extremists."

A letter from the New Zealand Green Party was delivered to Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark on September 27 following foreign minister Phil Goff's offer of NZ Special Air Service troops to the US. The letter asked Clark to commit NZ armed forces only once she had confirmed that any US military action would be in accordance with international law, is under the clear command of the UN, has a clear role for NZ troops in apprehending terrorists and bringing them to trial and is accompanied by clear evidence showing who was responsible for the terrorist attacks in the US.

In an October 3 media release, Keith Locke, the NZ Greens' foreign affairs spokesperson, said: "The Green Party is pleased the government has agreed to our request for a special debate, before any combat troops are deployed to the American-led task force being gathered around Afghanistan. Sending NZ troops into a combat situation is a very serious matter, because we are putting the lives of our soldiers at risk. There needs to be very good grounds before such action is taken."

Locke added: "Sending the SAS as proposed would not help the fight against terrorism. It would actually be part of an assault that creates more terrorists."

The NZ Greens called for the use of non-military options to place pressure on other countries to cooperate in the eradication of terrorism. The party also advocates fighting the root causes of terrorism, for example by opposing the sanctions against Iraq and placing more pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

On September 17, the Australian Senate passed a motion invoking the ANZUS treaty and endorsing the government's decision to "support within Australia's capabilities United States-led action against those responsible [for the September 11 terrorist attacks]".

Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown unsuccessfully attempted to amend the bill to remove the clauses which invoked the ANZUS treaty and committed Australian military support. Failing to secure any support for the amendments from the Coalition, Labor or the Democrats, Brown voted against the unamended motion.

However, Brown told the Senate on September 17 that he supported "swift military action" coordinated by the UN in tracking down and bringing to justice those responsible for the terrorism of September 11.

In a September 23 media release, Brown said: "The US will inevitably be the driving force in the hunt [to bring the September 11 terrorists to justice]. But the vehicle should be the UN."

In a national press club address on September 25, Brown said the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks should be tried by the International Court of Justice. He said "Australia's parliament should be consulted as well as President Bush before land forces are committed again in Asia".

Brown said in an October 4 media release that deploying Australian troops under a US-led mission in Afghanistan would be a "strategic mistake" and that troops "should be under Australia's control or the United Nations". Brown said that terrorists "could use the fact that the US is in charge to widen the conflict".

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.