|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Europe
: The
Balkan Crisis
German Green party backs Balkan war
By Ute Reissner
15 May 1999
The delegates to the special conference of Bündnis 90/Die
Grünen (Alliance 90/The Greens) have backed the policy of
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. The government's war
policy against Yugoslavia has thus become the official policy
of the Greens.
The sole issue at the conference, held May 13 in Bielefeld,
was the war in Yugoslavia. Protected by a massive force of police
and security service personnel, the delegates agreed the resolution
tabled by the party executive, which had been drawn up in consultation
with Fischer. There were 444 delegates who voted for the resolution.
An alternative motion proposed by Christian Ströbele and
Annelie Buntenbach (both Green party parliamentary deputies) received
318 votes.
The main difference between the two resolutions was that the
executive's motion called for a limited cessation to the NATO
bombing, whereas the alternative called for an indefinite halt
to the air attacks. Both made Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic
solely responsible for the war. Both supported the diplomatic
actions of Fischer, and both agreed to a continuation of the coalition
government with the Social Democratic Party.
The theatricals--the much intoned "disunity" of the
government members, an attack on Fischer with a paint balloon,
and occasional catcalls and whistles--more or less exhausted the
extent of the differences in the content, scope and framework
of the debate. The size of the differences was completely exaggerated
and blown out of proportion in the media. Over a dozen cameras
caught every interruption and banner being waved by those at the
back of the hall.
In a similar fashion in 1989, every television station had
featured every tiny group of people waving the (West) German flag
during the mass meetings in the East preceding the fall of the
Berlin Wall. This media manipulation has a definite purpose as
well: to create a safety valve for the widespread opposition in
the population to the war. It is supposed to give the impression
that the Greens are still a party where such opposition to the
war can find a place.
According to the media presentation, the majority of the party
only reached its decision to support an unavoidable war against
a genocidal dictator after much inner strife, while their internal
opponents have clung firmly to their consistently pacifist views.
This was the source of the violent arguments. Thus both sides
had a difficult time, but were able to conduct their democratic
dispute in a supreme example of mutual respect. And in the end,
they could all say that they shared the same aim--peace--by supporting
the German government in war, as the German people should also
do.
However, the party conference actually revealed the opposite.
It is the culmination of the transformation of the Greens from
a social movement into an unscrupulous tool of an oppressive power.
It also illustrates the readiness of those Greens who hold office,
like Foreign Minister Fischer and his Minister of State Ludger
Volmer, to ruthlessly trample on democratic rights. It was no
accident that there was a tight police cordon thrown round the
conference hall, as previously only seen at anti-nuclear demonstrations.
What really happened at the conference?
The decision whether delegates supported a limited or unlimited
NATO cease-fire had little practical relevance. In other words,
the "opposition" was getting verbally excited about
things over which they had no control--the concrete war strategy
that NATO follows. They blustered about the war as such and peace
in general, instead of undertaking something which could have
had an effect, if they were ever really seriously concerned about
putting an end to the war: ending Green party support for the
SPD, expelling their members in government responsible for the
war, calling for mass demonstrations against the bombing.
The whole thrust of the discussion and argument was aimed at
hiding this simple fact. The motto "reconcile peace and human
rights" was emblazoned over the head table. The representatives
of the executive explained that this was a concrete case of a
"conflict of aims". One could either support the human
rights of the displaced Kosovar Albanians through the NATO bombing,
or make peace with Milosevic at their expense. Their critics argued
that there was another way of putting pressure on Yugoslavia,
for example by implementing sanctions. They claimed this course
had not been really exhausted.
It was as if in the run-up to World War One, all the various
conflicting interests of the imperial powers could have been ignored,
and the whole issue revolved around whether Austro-Hungary's declaration
of war against Serbia was a proper response to the murder of Archduke
Ferdinand in Sarajevo. The pretext for the present war--the fate
of the Kosovar Albanians--was treated by all the delegates as
good coin. The question of the real war aims was never put.
In this way, the entire debate at the conference became an
embellishment to cover up the war propaganda. The discussion revolved
exclusively around the axis of the war policy as laid down by
the German government. Those individual Green members who really
wanted to see an end to the bombing were correspondingly full
of despair.
Each side tried to outdo the other in their denunciations of
the misdeeds of Milosevic. Although many delegates noted that
the bombing had only worsened the situation of the Kosovars, not
a single one drew the obvious conclusion from this that the whole
exercise could have been motivated from the start by quite different
aims than humanitarianism. The question of whose interests and
for what reasons the war against Yugoslavia was really being pursued
was the biggest unmentionable at the conference.
Why was this question not touched on? "If the war is being
pursued for aims other than those which are officially given,
then the moral high horse on which the Greens like to sit, is
revealed to be nothing more than an old nag full of malice and
artfulness. The claim that this war is being conducted for human
rights collapses" (from a leaflet of the World Socialist
Web Site German edition, that was distributed to the delegates
to the conference).
The critics of the bombing displayed the absolute impotence
of pacifism, which leaves the fundamental interests of the belligerent
powers untouched and restricts itself to the call, "put down
your weapons". It was a grotesque sight to watch the display
of angry war hysteria by Green leaders against these critics.
In response to heckling from the back of the hall, Fischer
shouted loudly: "Yes, now you're coming, I've been waiting
for you: 'warmonger, here speaks a warmonger,' and Mr. Milosevic
will be nominating you for the Nobel Peace Prize next." Ludger
Volmer described the regime in Serbia as a fascist one that could
not be opposed by peaceful means. And Daniel Cohn-Bendit demagogically
attacked the supporters of the Ströbele-Buntenbach motion,
calling them cowards because they shrank back in the face of violence.
According to Cohn-Bendit, Milosevic would be pleased with their
proposal.
Ströbele himself noted, correctly, that a democrat should
not argue by saying that every criticism of the conduct of the
war by one's own government only aids the enemy. This was the
argument of a authoritarian regime in war.
All opponents and critics of the US and NATO's war policy should
be on guard against this party, and especially its ministers!
There is little to which they would not stoop.
See Also:
What really has happened in Kosovo
[14 May 1999]
Former SPD chairman's May Day speech
creates problems for German government
Lafontaine calls for a stop to the bombing of Yugoslavia
[7 May 1999]
The German Green Party at war
[30 April 1999]
War in
the Balkans
[WSWS Full Coverage]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |