Women and the Peace Movement in the Federal Republic of Germany

Abstract

There can be no doubt about it: since the deployment of Pershing II and Cruise missiles, disorientation and frustration have been the most characteristic features of the German peace movement. Spectacular rallies, peace marches, and sit-ins in front of military installations have come to an end, discussions on peace and disarmament no longer dominate the front pages of national newspapers and magazines, and the everyday life of the Germans has resumed its former tranquility. It seems that everybody has gone back to business. The peace movement's failure to avert the deployment of Pershing II missiles in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) has led to a strong feeling of resignation, as many peace activists have come to realize that the government is thoroughly prepared to carry out its plans without their consent or even against the expressed wish of the majority of people in the FRG. Typical of this resignation was the result of the so-called plebiscite on deployment, carried out by a small majority of groups of the peace movement, that took place on June 17, 1984, the day of the elections to the European Council. Peace activists asked people in front of or near the polling stations whether they agreed with government rearmament plans. The groups that registered the votes reported that a majority of 51 percent of people interviewed were against government plans. But then, the plebiscite was carried out without heartfelt commitment and with depressed spirits. A plebiscite is always a controversial means of arriving at truly democratic decisions. In this case the very low proportion of people who registered their opinion for or against further deployment of nuclear weapons had an additional effect of demobilizing peace activists. We are quite certain that a change of government politics cannot be secured by such means. This effort was nothing more than a waste of time and energies. The possibility of annihilating mankind came into this world not with the deployment of Pershing II or Soviet SS 20 missiles, but much earlier, when the first nuclear weapons were devised. It is this new quality we should struggle against, as the writer Giinther Anders made clear quite early.1 The defeat of the peace movement suggests the need for a critical revision of the conduct of our struggle under the banner of nonviolence at all costs! and for a critical l ok at the so-called specifically female trait of peaceableness that socialization has made part of our nature.2 Some groups in the peace movement by now have come to the conclusion that to defend our lives we must use every means available, including violence. We should ask ourselves if it is not a waste of energies to sit in at ammunition depots and let ourselves be removed, nonviolent as we are, by the police and pay the fines for breaches of the peace. What is the use of peace rallies and speccular campaigns if they do not have any effect whatsoever on current government policies? The East German novelist Christa Wolf expressed these doubts quite aptly: If hey dare to draw the annihilation of Europe into their calculations then, surely, we-who are just morituri in the statistics of the planning staffs in the headquarters-are allowed to take liberties in our choosing of effective means of resistance.3 But how should the peace movement carry on from here? Have women given new impetus, new ideas to the movement? We do not think so.