| |
| |
You are here: Frontpage > Issues > 2443 >
|
|
A weekend in `dam
Women's Antiwar Strategy Workshop
Militarism and war have in some ways changed their nature in the last two decades. Or is
it our perception of them that's changed? As women in Europe involved in groups
opposing militarism and war we have found ourselves having to re-organise our
resistance and re-think the alternatives we are calling for.
These thoughts prompted twenty of us to get together for a weekend workshop in
Amsterdam at the end of January, an opportunity for in-depth discussion of women's
current and future anti-militarist and anti-war strategies.
Some of the women at the Amsterdam workshop came from women-only groups. Some
were active, as feminists, in groups with men. While some of us were more "specialised"
in one kind of activism or another, women were commonly doing a bit of several kinds of
things: non-violent direct action, camping at military sites, information and lobbying,
campaigning, solidarity work and local interventions in countries at war. Even those of us
who had chosen a local focus were likely to be simultaneously active at national or
international level. There were women present from— among other groups and
networks—the Campaign Against Arms Trade, Peace Brigades International, Women for
Peace, Women in Black, For Mother Earth, and Aldermaston and Menwith Hill Women's
Peace Camps.
In the Cold War period, peace activists had a rather clear focus. It was for nuclear
disarmament, non-proliferation, tension reduction, direct action against our own states
and militaries, and involving ordinary people in a sphere diplomats and politicians
wanted to keep to themselves. We tried to reach out to women on the other side of the
Iron Curtain, without getting co-opted by the Soviet officially-sponsored peace
committees and institutions. But with the collapse of communist administrations and the
incursion of "the market", sources of strife and perceptions of danger have shifted.
The armed wing of globalisation
We tried to identify the most important changes in our environment since 1989 (fall of
the Berlin Wall) and their implications for action. Big power political and military
strategies, and international relations generally, had shifted. An example was the
militarisation of the European Union, which clearly implied a need for Europe-wide
organisation on our part. The reach of capitalism was ever more global, and the power of
international financial institutions growing. A global protest movement was also gaining
momentum. We needed to be part of this, strengthening nonviolent methods, and
demonstrating that "militarism is the armed wing of capitalist globalisation".
We were seeing changes in weapons systems, and these too had implications for
resistance. Take the re-use of radioactive material in weapons used in civilian areas such
as Kosov@—a reminder of an ever greater need to link antimilitarist with environmental
issues. There was the advent of Bush and his US National Missile Defence system—a
reminder of the need for effective worldwide networking by antimilitarist groups to
prevent deployment of this "son of Star Wars" technology.
There had been many social and cultural changes too, for instance the growth of religious
fundamentalisms and aggressive nationalisms (outbreak of separatist wars),
developments in international law, and in the functioning of the UN. Media
representations had changed—or instance the justification of war through "humanitarian"
discourse—and we needed to find our own language in which to contest them.
A well-theorised connection
Throughout the two days of the workshop we tried to draw out the gender significance of
these trends, and particularly their significance for women. There had been a damaging
backlash against feminism. Many women felt that the peace movement had fallen apart in
the last ten or fifteen years and that young women (young people in general) were not
alert to these issues. We felt women's peace groups to be weaker and fewer.
So we asked ourselves: what are the particular strengths of women, women's
organisation and a feminist gender analysis in confronting militarism and war? Most of
us felt that when we engaged in anti-militarism it was not in some way due to our
"essential nature" as women, but sprang from a well-theorised connection between
militarist, nationalist and patriarchal structures and cultures. We explored how we might
spread this consciousness, particularly among younger women, and strengthen the links
between the women's movement and the peace movement. And we discussed what
specific alliances might be effective—for instance with feminist organisations addressing
male violence and rape in war.
|
|
|
|
