Reprint from a special edition of the newspaper, Graswurzelrevolution for the
50th anniversary of War Resisters' International
by Andreas Schaefter, WRI, Euskadie
The discussion for an International Conscientious Objection (CO) Conference was
initiated by War Resisters International (WRI) at international conferences
throughout the 1980s. They hoped to bring together organisations from all over
the world working on the issue of conscientious objection. This would also put
the debate on conscientious objection at an international level. After the
conclusion of many smaller meetings in different European countries, it was
decided to hold a yearly conference. Thus, the first impressive ICONI was
founded in Barchem, Netherlands in 1987. The conference in Barchem represented
an important starting point for all future yearly meetings. It symbolised the
self-organisation and co-ordination of the conscientious objector's movement and
represented a turning point in the debate on conscientious objection.
 Certain
issues were at the centre of discussion until the 1980s. This included a
discussion on current laws and provisions on conscientious objection, as well as
the formation of a provision for alternative service in different countries. The
goal of conscientious objectors was until then the extension of laws to
countries without provisions, providing recognised experience and better
conditions for alternative service.
The ICONI conference in Barchem led to a fundamental debate on the goals of the
conscientious objectors' movement. First and foremost, this was influenced by a
division in strategies. Some put military service and civil service in the same
category (thereby undermining compulsory military service). Secondly, there were
discussions on the overall increasing number of conscientious objectors. Another
issue revolved around the miscalculation of the concept of civil service within
the framework of conscientious objection (for the most part outside of Germany).
Last but not least, the situation of the collective conscientious objection
campaign in Spanish speaking nations, where compulsory military service has been
reinstated, placed an underlying emphasis on militarisation at the centre of the
debate.
The real discussion is about the two different views on conscientious
objection. One was and is strongly orientated around the individual and places
the personal conscience or the ethical values of the conscientious objector in
the spotlight. This means organised groups and the movement mostly defend the
rights of the individual conscientious objectors. This is rather a
religious-syndicalistic view ( in the sense of trade unions). The other
perspective is based on the collective. They speak of a society orientated
conception. Compulsory military service and militarisation is a problem of
society. They do not strive to attain rights for the conscientious objector per
se. The conscientious objector is seen as a tool to use in the fight against
overall militarisation through the issue of compulsory military service. This
includes a perspective on an overall movement and the struggle for societal
changes.
These two opposing viewpoints have had naturally their consequences when it
comes to political strategies. One perspective emphasises the rights of the
conscientious objector and alternatives to military service. The other viewpoint
claims conscientious objection as a natural right. They reject all legislation
on conscientious objection because this inherently limits their natural rights.
They maintain this right in front of society, in the context of society, and for
society through organised civil disobedience. Despite these ideological
differences, the discussion never blew into a confrontation. The truth is that
both sides support a common aim for a peaceful society without a military.
This common goal prevented a polarisation of the debate leading to a
constructive analysis. For some, the most important point was to define the
borders of legislature on conscientious objection in view of militaristic
governments. This brought the discussion on compulsory military service in the
foreground. For others, the priorities were a critical analysis of the stagnant
and retrograde situation in different countries in consideration of the common
goal. This included a conscious rediscovery of the conscientious objector as a
tool in him/herself and what the conscientious objection movement strives for
today. This also meant developing the necessary political strategies, in order
to make steps toward the demilitarisation of society. This last point above all
rendered possible a common reflection on and a retrospective analysis of both
approaches.
In the first case, the conscientious objection organisations concentrated on
developing civil service, in particular, establishing the same conditions for
civil service (as opposed to military service). This goal from the beginning was
not attainable, as it meant virtually the repeal of compulsory service. For some
this would have been unimaginable or was simply ignored as even being a
possibility. Constitutional complaints referring to laws on conscientious
objection put national defence as a priority. This in turn places all
conscientious objection laws on the same level. The failure of this approach is
not surprising. In the army they say, a troubled person who always thinks about
his problem loses sight of his real problem. Governments may be making it easier
to publicly debate on the civil service issue, but as they concentrate on
statutes, laws, regulations and the number of conscientious objectors, the whole
discussion is steered by their own interests. In fact the easing of public
debate is practically a fatal blow to conscientious objector organisations
because it has turned their important political work into a superficial
discussion.
 The
limited possibilities, conscientious objectors have during civil service to
politicise, have become even less. Governments have successfully used the
conscientious objection movement for their own goals. For example, the
strategies that were followed in France and in Belgium, to build up a `peace
service' step by step, have come to nothing for the reasons outlined above.
Governments were however prepared to tolerate one form of `progressive' civil
service for a very small minority. The number of conscientious objectors in
these countries has made this only more clear. This must anyway be questioned,
to what extent can a peace service exist from an anti-military view. If the
peace movements were not noteworthy or did not even dealt with the theme of
conscientious objection in the 1980s and if the conscientious objector
organisations failed to make it a theme in the peace movement, then one could
summarise, that the conscientious objector did not, in terms of peace and
societal politics, play a role in these countries.
The anti-military approach is, for example, how conscientious objection is
practised in Spain. This means taking a radical approach. For one, the
conscientious objector is not seen as a tool to put in the centre thereby
creating a right, law or special status for him/her. On the contrary, they are a
tool to exert the right for civilian disobedience. The integration or
assimilation of the conscientious objector becomes a gesture of a fundamental
criticism: to prevent a military system. This implies fundamentally another way
of handling repression. One tries not to prevent it, but really to provoke it,
in order to use it for one's own goals.
It is therefore necessary to mobilise support from the largest part of society
possible. It is not about work on anti-repression, but it is about the
solidarity of society with values and goals which lie behind the civil
disobedience of the conscientious objector. A necessary component in this
approach is the progressive integration of other sectors of society, which
through support or participation in the conscientious objection movement broaden
the sense of the concept. In this way it is good to use the practised repression
of the state to gain support.
It has not been a characteristic of the conscientious objector movement to
promote changes in laws. It was the government which arranged for more changes
in laws, for example, the reduction in the length of military or civil service.
This was done in order to remove public pressure, caused by the work of the
conscientious objector movement, away from the military and put the debate on a
legal level. An anti-military value has been taken on by society, through
collective civil disobedience supported by non-violent actions. The
conscientious objector movement has led the way to become a vital element in the
peace movement in Spain. The conscientious objector movement is no longer bound
with the military, but stands more and more for the dis-co-operation with a
militaristic system and is as a form of a propagated civil disobedience
applicable in many ways. The consequences for different conceptions are not
limited only to political strategies, but are also applicable to the
organisational structure of the conscientious objector movement itself.
Let us consider examples of Germany and Spain in the form of paradigms. In the
first case, the paradigm can be seen as a hierarchical organisational structure
whereas, the second case is a horizontal structure developed by co-ordinated
autonomous groups. The first example is certainly also a reason for the limited
flexibility of many conscientious objector organisations (in the European
context) which despite the analysis described above were unable to develop other
strategies.
The parameter of this debate has not changed in the past few years. The
debate in itself however has deepened. Over all, new conscientious objection
groups have emerged. The movement to other reference points has been successful
for their own political development. Think about Latin America or eastern
European countries and how the movement prevented the concrete situation in a
country from being underdeveloped. Consider the advancements in the sense of
conscientious objector legislature according to what extent the group, despite
at times very repressive situations, was capable of turning militarisation into
an issue for public debate. Looking toward the future, this point is even more
important. Think about the current international trend to make armies
professional (or the abolishment of compulsory military service). This is mostly
bound up with the idea of a general compulsory service (for both men and women)
which is on the way in France. This tendency is already having fatal effects
today for the conscientious objection movement in countries, such as Belgium or
the Netherlands. Much of the work in these countries comes from people in the
civil service. This will soon, if not already, put an end to the no longer
existent compulsory military service.
Conscientious objector organisations should use the time that is still left to
prevent a decision toward a professional army and to develop new strategies.
Only conscientious objection organisations which use conscientious objectors as
tools to do everything possible and become a socially relevant anti-military
movement, have a chance after the introduction of a professional army (which in
many cases will be hard to prevent) or a general compulsory service, to promote
fertile anti-military work. The relevant points have to be introduced now and
the time for development and the search for new tools pushed. Like recent
history in the conscientious objection movement has showed, using organised
civil disobedience as a tool or strategy works. This is especially true in
places where the right political, social and cultural conditions for a campaign
of this kind exist. All people who can imagine a free, fair, united, and a
peaceful world without an army are called on to recognise this and to push for
the right consequence.
Andreas Schaefter is in the Basque section of WRI, Kontizienti Eragozpen
Mugimendua (KEM-MOC)and is director of WRI since the the Triennal in 1994.
The article was published in No
29of NEWSLETTER-
The International Communication Project - Editor:Bernd Schneider, Hannover
December 1996.
|
