The military will not solve a single problem

"The military will not solve a single problem"

Peace movement in Germany
Call for anti-war demonstration in Berlin. Initiative publishes special edition of "Zeitung gegen den Krieg". An interview with Willi van Ooyen

[This interview posted on 11/7/2023 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/462603.friedensbewegung-in-der-brd-milit%C3%A4r-wird-kein-einziges-problem-l%C3%B6sen.html.]

Willi van Ooyen is a peace activist and member of the press team of the "Never Again War - Lay Down Your Arms" initiative

Your initiative "Never Again War - Lay Down Your Arms" is calling for a nationwide demonstration in Berlin on Saturday, November 25. Shortly afterwards, the new federal budget is to be passed in parliament. What do you want to achieve?

We want to make the further militarization of Germany an issue: the appalling sum of 100 billion for the Bundeswehr and the NATO commitment to spend two percent of gross domestic product on defence every year. We want to call this into question. And this is urgently needed, as every day without a ceasefire in Ukraine means senseless bloodshed in a war that cannot be won by the country. The war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza threatens a conflagration not only in the Middle East. We therefore need a different policy that ensures social justice and balance. We must protest together against military armament and social cuts.

You are publishing a special edition of the newspaper against the war. Isn't it likely that only those who are "peace-minded" will read it anyway?

We have been publishing our newspaper for years to coincide with the Easter March or Anti-War Day. Our initiatives distribute this special edition at information stands around the country to mobilize people for the demonstration on 25 November. In this way, we reach more people in pedestrian zones in cities than just those who are making their way to Berlin.

Authors of the special edition include Gregor Gysi, Die Linke, and Sarah Wagenknecht, formerly Die Linke. Did the team want to be balanced between the party and the newly formed Sarah Wagenknecht, BSW alliance?
Who owns the world? - Your subscription counts.

No, we are not sifting through different programs, but rather focusing on our own political ideas. We expect this to enable us to formulate the most consistent peace policy despite possible differences in party political organization. Irrespective of different formations, we offer personalities who are against war, further militarization and armament policy to join forces in the fight against it. That is our political signal.

Have you already given up on the parties of the traffic light government and the CDU/CSU as far as peacemaking is concerned?

We are not interested in which party or which left-wing alliance agitates for peace; we would also like to see people from the democratic left within the SPD. We also ask prominent figures such as Franz Alt to help promote our content. A wide range of independent personalities are also involved. Naturally, we are joined by organizations such as Friends of Nature, IPPNW, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War/Doctors with a Social Responsibility - as well as Die Linke.

How do you rate the trade unions in terms of their commitment against war?

We are campaigning for them to take a clearer position on peace policy. We are pleased about the resolution passed at the 25th IG Metall trade union conference at the end of October, which makes it clear that they see themselves as part of the peace movement. At Verdi, it has become clear that many delegates take a critical stance on the majority's approval of arms deliveries. We want to identify common positions of the peace movement and the trade unions and try to move the discussions forward. Because we are convinced that further militarization will increase social misery in Germany.

And how do you counter the accusation made by some Bellicans that the peace movement is naive with its demands for disarmament?

We have seen such attempts to ridicule our peace policy positions for decades. However, it is obvious that the military will not solve a single problem and that war has no prospects. It leads to the impoverishment of millions of people and forces migration. In this respect, we are relaxed about those who believe that peace can be achieved with weapons. Our position is to promote a policy of détente, negotiations and joint development processes. That is the only viable one.
________________________________________________________

Heikle Gespräche
https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/news/detail/9396

Future-oriented science instead of geopolitics
Peace-logical perspectives on the Ukraine war

by Jürgen Scheffran
[This article posted in 11/2022 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://wissenschaft-und-frieden.de/artikel/zukunftsorientierte-wissenschaft-statt-geopolitik/.]

It is indisputable that Russia is waging a war of aggression against Ukraine in violation of international law. The question is how to counter this. Geopolitics seems to be the means of the hour, while a logical peace response is largely ignored. However, geopolitical strategies promote rivalries and endanger the future of the planet. A future-oriented peace science is therefore needed - more than ever.

On October 16, 1914, after the German declaration of war on Russia and France, almost the entire teaching staff of German universities and technical colleges supported the war. They followed the so-called Manifesto of the 93 "To the World of Culture!", which justified the defense campaign: "The utmost has been done by the German side to avert it. [...] Those who ally themselves with Russians and Serbs have the least right to pose as defenders of European civilization".

The mood at the time ranged from trepidation at the overpowering threat to enthusiasm about the national unity that had finally been achieved. While there were initially massive protests and anti-war demonstrations, the SPD leadership performed a U-turn at the start of the war and agreed to war credits in a "truce" with the loyalists in the Reichstag.
Lonely against the war

But not everyone bowed to the war effort. Albert Einstein was shocked by the patriotic mood of almost all his fellow scientists and felt lonely as an intellectual and pacifist. Together with two other colleagues, he signed the "Appeal to the Europeans" written by Georg Friedrich Nicolai in the summer of 1914, which was not published due to a lack of further support. With foresight, it stated: "The battle that is raging today will probably not produce a victor; it will probably only leave the vanquished." They expected "all European relations to fall into an unstable [...] state". It soon became clear that the authors were right. Everyday life during the war made life difficult for many, mass unemployment, food prices rose and poverty increased. Scientists died at the front or contributed their expertise to the war effort.

Just as the catastrophic end of the First World War was foreseeable, so was the path to it. Some academics and intellectuals who observed the socio-economic, industrial and military logic of the times foresaw the major systemic confrontations. For example, the Polish-Russian industrialist Ivan (Jan) von Bloch, a friend of Bertha von Suttner, described the coming great war in his six-volume work from 1898 (Scheffran 2014). He was nominated for the first Nobel Peace Prize for this in 1901, shortly before he died. The example of the British meteorologist Lewis Frye Richardson also shows the relevance of sober science. After the First World War, Richardson used a model to investigate how the dynamics of armaments had built up, which later prompted him to issue warnings about the Second World War (Scheffran 2020).
The present of the past

Almost one hundred years after the First World War, a German government once again finds itself embroiled in a war in which borders are to be moved by force of arms. A German SPD chancellor calls for a turnaround and mobilizes war credits for rearmament and arms deliveries in a hot war that must not be lost. The public mood fluctuates between trepidation about the threat and enthusiasm about a previously unattained unity in Europe. Geopolitical considerations dominate the public debate, leaving little room for dissenting opinions. The economy threatens to tip over into a deep crisis, the populations of all warring parties have to pay for the war and suffer from sanctions and high food prices. The battle leaves behind only the defeated.

In view of such associations, it can be argued that the historical situation today is completely different from a hundred years ago and that similarities can be explained by the general logic of war. Germany has learned from the lost world wars and the won Cold War, has become more civilian, does not wage war itself, but stands by the attacked side, legitimized by a democratically elected parliament. Today, it is no longer about "fatherlands", but about a feminist foreign policy.

However, the question may be raised as to whether the choice of means does not put all this at risk. With Russia and Ukraine using military means and the West imposing the toughest sanctions and heavy weapons, all parties are escalating the conflict and prolonging it with increasing damage. They are undermining the lessons of history, reviving geopolitical power struggles with cold and hot wars, laying the foundations for new violent conflicts, consuming enormous resources, obstructing negotiated solutions, marginalizing civil society, peace forces and dissenters. The question of how this came about, how mutual disregard and threats contributed to it, is suppressed.
Back to the future

In addition to the past, the future, about which supposedly nothing can be said, is also ignored. As with the world wars, the dangers of the current world situation were described beforehand - including by the author of this article, summarized in an article four months before the start of the war (Scheffran 2021). Among other things, it shows that after Putin took office, there were warnings of a new Cold War (2000), that the Iraq War and other Western wars paved the way for this (2003), that complex crises and conflicts endangered international security (2008), that an unstable world situation like that of the First World War was possible (2009), that links between climate change, flight and conflicts were emerging (2012) and that multiple crises were developing in the globalized world (2016). The conclusion: "The situation is reminiscent of the upheavals a hundred years ago, with the First World War, the Spanish flu, the global economic crisis and fascism, which led to the Second World War" (Scheffran 2021, p. 218).

In politics, statements about the future are often dismissed as know-it-all, and "safe" catastrophe science, which is only called to the front when there is already a fire, is preferred to "uncertain" prevention science. In order to look into the future in a scientifically valid way, however, there is no need for prophecies; it is enough to recognize development directions, path dependencies or red lines whose interaction crosses critical boundaries. These observations are also not deterministic insofar as the systems under consideration are made and controlled by people and can be changed by political decisions. This presupposes that the truth can be spoken publicly. In the "free West", this should be self-evident without being personally discredited, even when it comes to categories of "good" and "evil". With the resurgence of geopolitics in politics and the media, however, independent peace studies are coming under pressure.
The return of geopolitics

At the beginning of the 20th century, the theory of "geopolitics" developed in the wake of the European colonialist tradition of geography, which could be instrumentalized for power politics.1 While geopolitics had long been discredited in Germany due to its personal and ideological links with National Socialism, it regained importance after German reunification. The Ukraine war has increased the influence of geopolitical think tanks. Geopolitical arguments on the part of the new old system rivals are recognizable. Putin's neo-imperial aspirations tie in with Russia's colonial expansion (e.g. the Crimean War of 1853-1856) and the foundation of the Soviet Union based on this. Conversely, the Eurasian land mass aroused desires in the West, from Napoleon's conquest of Moscow to the geopolitics of the USA during the Cold War and beyond. The book "Grand Chessboard" (1997) by former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski is still used today as a central argument. In it, he formulated the goal of US geostrategy that there should be no challenger that controls the Eurasian landmass and challenges US dominance.

These goals can in turn be used by Putin to denounce threats to Russian security interests from the West. After initially seeking recognition for Russia in the West and engaging in partnership and trade, the ongoing deterioration of relations dashed all hopes. NATO's 16-fold military superiority, NATO and EU eastward expansions, Western military interventions in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, the establishment of a European missile defense system and the termination of arms control treaties motivated Russian threatening and violent actions in the post-Soviet space.

This also applies to the war against Ukraine and its prehistory. When Russia's military threats on the border with Ukraine did not lead to negotiations in early 2022, Putin began the attack on Ukraine. Support for the separatists, territorial gains in Ukraine and "punishment" for their orientation towards the West are possible motives for the invasion, which also serves as a lever to demonstrate Western powerlessness to the world. He is prepared to pay a high price for this, which has not deterred him from his reckless plan any more than Western superiority. With the start of the war, such rationalizing explanations of Russian behaviour were pushed into the corner of the "Putin experts", while Putinologists outdid themselves with speculation as to who understood Putin best. They vacillated between the strategic genius, the irrational demon and the unscrupulous dictator - explanations whose scientific foundations are questionable.

If Europe and Russia weaken each other and the European peace order is in tatters, this does not necessarily contradict the interests of the USA, on the contrary. In the short term, it strengthens the unconditional unity of the West and NATO under American leadership, cements Russia's separation from Germany and Europe, allows profits from fracking gas, the mobilization of the arms machine, provokes the ideological struggle between democracy and autocracy as in the Cold War and opens up domestic political advantages in upcoming elections. Even if some see Washington as the key to overcoming the war in Ukraine, it remains unclear whether and when this key will be used.

After all, this war and its consequences can also be seen as a preparation and test case for the confrontation with China, currently the real challenger and antithesis of US hegemony. The conflict with Russia could thus promote the conditions for the coming war with China (NATO members' willingness to mobilize, US claim to leadership, militarized rhetoric and response to developments in China).
Bloc confrontation and the Global South

With the war in Ukraine, the Global South is increasingly playing a role as a geopolitical actor. Although the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution against the Russian war of aggression on March 2, 2022 with a majority of 141 states, the 35 abstentions (including China and India) and five votes against (Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Eritrea) revealed significant differences. Some states expressed understanding for the Russian position, did not support the Western coalition and are prepared to join a counter-coalition of the BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). They see opportunities to promote their interests in a bloc confrontation - as they did during the Cold War.

Due to colonial experiences, a "Global West" is viewed critically; it is accused of Eurocentrism, double standards and injustice in asserting its interests, if necessary with violence and against the rules. The West thus appears as a "villain" (von Weizsäcker 2022) that wants to impose its value-based model of liberal democracy on others, which it itself has taken centuries to achieve, sometimes at the expense of the colonies. The geostrategic chess games envisaged by Brzezinski (1997) and others affect not only the interests of Russia and China, but also those of Central Asia, India, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, which do not consider themselves to be Western democracies.

If Putin succeeds in creating a new division in the world ("The West and the rest"), this would be a success for him that goes beyond the Ukraine war and his regime. While the West was initially intoxicated by the new unity, since the G7 summit in June 2022, the realization that the world is divided seems to have reached the leading nations of a Western-oriented world order, especially as the parallel BRICS counter-summit was no coincidence. The Western world order must now show what it can offer its competitors. If weapons and sanctions destabilize the West and the world and polarize societies, they can become counterproductive. The corresponding populist movements are waiting for their chance to exploit this weakness in their favor, and not only in Western democracies.
Rearmament is not a turning point

Arms spending has been increasing worldwide for years. The "turnaround" proclaimed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz is forcing this rearmament in order to maintain the existing world order by force. However, this is not a turning point - it is a way back, especially as this was already being prepared before 2022 (see, for example, Bunde et al. 2020).

Three megatrends are more suitable for a true turning point: the socio-ecological transformation, the influence of the Global South and the role of social media and civil society (Scheffran 2021, p. 222): "The trends mentioned have the potential to turn the tide, as after the French Revolution at the beginning of the 19th century or with the First World War at the beginning of the 20th century."

For such a turning point, we need a resilient energy supply and sustainable climate protection within planetary boundaries, which also serve to secure peace and point the way to a viable and liveable world in the common home of the earth. The coexistence and cohabitation of different world orders to overcome these problems is more promising than further geopolitical power struggles, which not only put the West at risk, but also the planet. Peace science must therefore advocate a transformation based on the logic of peace - even and especially in times of dominant geopolitics.
Note

1) For the history and tradition of geopolitical (explanatory) images of the world and the logic of war, see W&F 1/2013 "Geopolitics".
Literature

Brzezinski, Z. (1997): The grand chessboard. American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives. New York: Basic Books.

Bunde, T. et al. (2020): Zeitenwende / Turning Times. Special Report, Munich Security Conference.

Scheffran, J. (2014): The Impossible War: Jan Bloch and the Mechanics of the First World War. W&F 2/2014, PP. 38-42.

Scheffran, J. (2020): Weather, war and chaos. In: Gleditsch, N. P. (ed.): Lewis Fry Richardson: His Intellectual Legacy and Influence in the Social Sciences. Cham: Springer, pp. 87-99.

Scheffran, J. (2021): Myths of established security policy: "The West can solve the world's problems". The Peace Watch 3-4, pp. 205-236.

Von Weizsäcker, E. (2022): The West as villain. Guest article, Blog der Republik, 14.4.2022.

Jürgen Scheffran is Professor of Integrative Geography, Head of the Climate Change and Security Research Group (CLISEC) at the University of Hamburg and a member of the W&F editorial team.
published in: Science & Peace 2022/3 War against Ukraine, page 30-32