The Peace Movements in Europe and the United States

Werner Kaltefleiter, Robert L. Pfaltzgraff

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781000023992
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Peace & Global Development
• Index: Politics & International Relations

In the early 1980s the peace movements in most of the Western countries captured public attention as never before. This largely resulted from NATO's decision in 1979 to deploy new medium range missiles in Europe in 1983 if negotiations with the Soviet Union to limit this type of weapon system failed. The main purpose of the peace movements in Europe was to put pressure on their respective governments to accept Soviet proposals in negotiations and not to deploy new missiles. Many large demonstrations and other 'happenings' were organised for this purpose. The Soviet and other Warsaw Pact countries accompanied and supported the activities of the peace movements by propaganda and disinformation campaigns. The national peace movements, despite their common aims, had different historic backgrounds and characteristics.

This book, originally published in 1985, presents an authoritative review of the peace movements in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany and the United States. The authors discuss not only the history and organisation of each peace movement, but also their international cooperation, media coverage and prospects for the future.

Chapter One

THE PEACE MOVEMENT IN SWEDEN

Jan Andersson and Kent Lindkvist

INTRODUCTION (1)

The peace movement in Sweden functions in a situation somewhat different from many other peace movements in Europe. Many of the goals of the European peace movements have already been achieved by the Swedish peace movement. In this way, the ‘Swedish model’ could be described as a model which includes neutrality, non-alignment, non-imperialism, and a nuclear-weapon-free zone. While most peace movements in Europe struggle for these goals, their achievements in Sweden present a problem for the Swedish peace movement: how to be a model for other peace movements and at the same time find an identity within Swedish society.

Sweden has not participated in any regular warfare since 1814, a fact that has considerably influenced Swedish ideology concerning war and peace. It is a historical framework for the foreign policy of Sweden in its neutralist outlook. But the concepts of neutrality, non-alignment, a nuclear-weapon-free zone and non-imperialism can be interpreted in different ways. There is a consensus on the concept of neutrality, but it has been interpreted according to different ideologies, not only within the Swedish national spectrum, but also within the different ideologies of the peace movement.

Sweden’s position in the world is, of course, of great importance. On the one hand, Sweden is said to be a small state, heavily dependent on international trade, investments and the supply of energy; on the other, Sweden has an intermediate position in the world system, where some countries, especially the other Nordic countries, in at least some important respects are dependent on Sweden. Sweden’s technological, economic and political position is relatively independent. Its trade structure by country and by commodity is quite diversified. This national position is of importance for an explanation of the ideology, politics, structure and activities of the modern peace movement in Sweden.

A small state could handle its external security in different ways: 1. bilateral alliance with one great power; 2. membership in a multinational alliance with one or many great powers; 3. alliance with small powers only; 4. non-alignment aiming at neutrality in every war; and 5. non-alignment, but not neutrality, in every war. (2) The military resources of a small state could be reinforced or weakened in all five cases. Neutrality is not compatible with 1. and 2. The neutrality in 3. to 5. could be pragmatic, passive or active. The modern Swedish peace movement is predominantly devoted to 4., not to reinforce military resources and to an active neutrality. But ideas of 3. and 5. have had and still have their adherents within the Swedish peace movement.

Attitudes towards military resources vary from preserving the status quo to total disarmament. There is disagreement over the extent to which Swedish neutrality needs to be defended by armed force. Active neutrality mostly means involvement in world affairs and some idea of a world order. But the degree of involvement as well as the character of the peaceful world order is disputed. There is also tension between a cosmopolitan and a national outlook. It is evident that there are divergencies of attitude from the dominant Swedish political ideology. The alignment policy is currently devoted to 4. which predominates in all political camps in Sweden. In the military resources policy, the central idea is that Swedish neutrality needs a strong military defence, at either existing or higher levels, but never lower ones. Only the peace movement and some sectors of the Left want a more modest military defence. On neutrality, there is division between Left and Right, in that the Left as well as the peace movement support an active neutrality, whereas the Right supports a pragmatic neutrality. If, however, we consider the peace movement from the perspective of the last 150 years, the persistent trend is that the peace movement has been against 1. and 2. but that all other forms of non-alignment, military resource application and neutrality have been represented.

ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF THE SWEDISH PEACE MOVEMENTS (3)

Pacifism as a negative view of warfare as a means in international conflict derives from the Enlightenment and was a part of nineteenth century liberalism. To consider the Swedish peace movement and peace ideas in the nineteenth century is to consider the directions and orientations within the liberal movement, especially from 1850 onwards. It is convenient to distinguish between two kinds of liberalism: national liberalism and Manchester liberalism. The national liberals advocated an active foreign policy. They wanted to support oppressed nations, which presupposed Swedish military intervention. On the contrary, the Swedish Manchester liberals argued that growing capitalism with free trade and investment was able to create harmony and peace between states, classes and individuals. It would promote reciprocal confidence between peoples, which would make armament unnecessary and pave the way for lasting peace. For the Manchester liberals the connection between free trade and peace was seen almost as self-evident.

In the 1860s the liberals were divided into two anti-militaristic camps. There evolved a non-interventionist wing of national liberals which proposed a reorganized defence system of a Swiss type. Opposed to them were the economic liberals who advocated strict non-alignment and a non-interventionist policy. The idea of 5. above was also advanced by the Scandinavists.

When two European peace organizations were formed in 1867, Ligue internationale de la Paix (LP) and Ligue de la Paix et de la Liberte (LPL), it revealed this division. The LP refrained from all controversial issues and was supported by the national liberals in Sweden, while the LPL emphasized democratic, republican and anti-clerical ideals and was supported by radical liberals. There also existed a third grouping, not attached to either of the two orientations, which represented Scandinavism as a bridging ideology.

The defence issue became increasingly important in Sweden and was a dividing line between the existing political parties. An initiative was given in 1869 by J. Jonasson, a representative of the Farmers’ Party, which proposed that Sweden should invite other nations to take steps towards a general disarmament. This motion was rejected by parliament, but supported by pacifist adherents in different camps. The contacts between the Farmers’ Party and the pacifist-oriented movement also meant an orientation to a more isolationist ideal in foreign policy. An anti-heroic concept of history also emerged in this context. The heroic projects of earlier kings were condemned. Instead, domestic development and scientific progress were considered vital.

During the 1870s and the 1880s the defence issue dominated the yearly parliamentary sessions and divided the pacifist movement. Inspired by initiatives taken by H. Richard from Great Britain and P. Mancini from Italy, J. Jonasson of the Farmers’ Party suggested that courts of arbitration should be established and treaties of arbitration be concluded between the nations. At the end of the 1870s the influential Danish retired officer and pacifist F. Bajer propagated the view that the security of a small nation was safeguarded by a formal neutralization of its territory. This idea was not widely recognized in Sweden until the issue of army organization was brought (in 1883) to a decisive trial of strength. The government’s proposal was to increase the period of conscription in the army. In this situation a Swedish peace organization came into existence, Svenska freds-och skiljedoms-foreningen (The Society for Peace and Arbitration in Sweden, SPAS). Most members of the Farmers’ Party were not pacifists, but they were against the government’s proposal on military reinforcement and increased military expenditure, due to economic interests. The creation of a peace organization strengthened antimilitaristic forces and managed to weaken the links between government and the Farmers’ Party on military issues.

The susceptibility to pacifism was marked among Scandinavian popular movements, such as the labour movement, the temperance movement and the dissenting congregations. Through these channels pacifist ideas were spread all over Sweden, where local organizations proliferated. In this way, an attitude characterized by anti-militarism and aversion to a strong national defence was created, which for a long time was a distinctive feature common to the Social Democratic Party as well as the bourgeois left. A more organized peace group in parliament was formed in 1892. This fact, as well as the sharpened contradictions between Left and Right, resulted in organized co-operation between the peace and suffrage movements. However, within the Left there was a contradiction between those who advocated a nihilistic attitude towards defence and supported disarmament, and those who claimed neutrality with a strong armed force.

The increased respectability of the peace movement, heightened by the establishment of the Nobel Prize foundation and the Nobel Peace Prize, resulted in the formation of a special peace society for women in 1898. The idea of neutrality formulated by the Belgian, E. Descamp was soon adopted by Scandinavian pacifists. Neutrality was said to have a function as a peace-promoting agent. Moreover, it would be desirable for the neutral nations to unite in a federation, whose special mission would be to propagate ‘pacigerance’. These ideas were quite widely accepted within the peace movement.

But at the turn of the century, the Swedish peace movement did not have a homogeneous point of view. Its members consisted mostly of liberals and social democrats. The social democratic arguments were that the bourgeois pacifist movement was deluded, since it trusted in peace conferences, arbitration and diplomacy instead of relying on international solidarity among the people and the popular movements, notably the labour movement. Only the building of democracy and a take-over of political power by the working classes could result in a lasting peace. As long as capitalism persisted there could be no lasting peace.

The crisis of the enforced union between Sweden and Norway became strained in 1895. The Norwegians protested against the Swedish regime and wanted to strengthen their independence. Militarist and conservative circles in Sweden agitated for military intervention in Norway to ‘keep the Norwegians quiet’. This was a signal for mobilization of the popular movements in Sweden against war with Norway. It strengthened the connections between the popular movements in Sweden, notably the peace movement and the labour movement, and the corresponding movements in Norway. The peace movements of Sweden and Norway established close cooperation, not only at the top but also in grass-root activities such as peace tourism, pen-friend clubs, etc.

The union crisis of 1895 was something of a rehearsal for the events of 1905. The Norwegian Parliament declared in June 1905 that it did not accept Swedish royal power. The dissolution of the union was a fact. Swedish chauvinism flourished and the government mobilized its military forces against Norway. The Swedish labour and peace movements supported the Norwegian actions. However, the crisis led to arbitration between Norway and Sweden and the union was abolished without violence. This arbitrational solution gave the Swedish peace movement tremendous prestige and founded the idea of neutrality towards all political camps.

The general strike in Sweden 1909 was a serious setback for the Swedish labour movement. It was weakened on many levels, but not the parliamentary, as suffrage was extended. The weakening of the labour movement also meant a setback for other radical popular movements. The peace movement also acted for arbitration in the conflict between labour and capital. It was not supported by either of these groups. On the contrary, the peace movement lost some of its prestige in this sharpened class struggle.

The topic of military defence became increasingly important in the first decade of the new century and the peace movement had no definite idea of a national defence system. It was anti-militaristic but at the same time aware of the threat of war embedded in the Prussian spirit, in European racialism, the nationalism of expanding great powers and the aggressiveness of capitalism. Before the First World War, there was a hard struggle between Left and Right on the issue of national defence with a democratic and republican camp, and a monarchical and conservative camp. In these contradictions the peace movement had no intermediating role; it had to support the former camp. This led to the defeat of the radical popular forces. The ‘crisis of the palace courtyard’ of 1914 led to a reinforced monarchy and the establishment of the Hammarskjold regime, in reality a constitutional dictatorship. But Sweden stayed out of the world war, perhaps not so much because of the actions of the popular movements, but rather because of the division within the Swedish ruling classes as to foreign orientation: Germany or Great Britain. Neutrality became something of a compromise within the ruling classes, but was at the same time in accordance with the peace movement and the majority of the labour movement.

In the first decade of the twentieth century, the peace movement was supplemented by a War Resister Movement, some Christian peace organizations and a Swedish section of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), which was an organization that included many prominent Swedish women. After the First World War the peace movement, with the exception of women’s organizations, decreased. Of course, one reason was that there was no need for anti-war activism. But peace ideology as well as the active neutrality of the kind that the peace movement represented has no place in Swedish post-war politics. Sweden was a neutral country, whether it had pragmatic or passive neutrality. At the end of the 1920s the peace movement, notably the SPAS, increased because of the activities of the ‘white general’, so named because he travelled around Sweden in a large white car. During the period of social tension, he campaigned for peace, against war preparations, and a possible second world war.

In the 1930s the peace movement struggled against the arms build-up, arms trade, arms industry, militarism and war preparations. But the Machtubernahme in Germany made the Swedish peace movement pessimistic and its activities were then characterized by retirement and despair by the late 1930s. The peace moveme...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgement
• Introduction
• Chapter 1. The Peace Movement in Sweden
• Chapter 2. The Peace Movement in Norway
• Chapter 3. The Peace Movement in the Netherlands
• Chapter 4. The Development of the Peace Movement in Britain
• Chapter 5. The West German Peace Movement: A Profile
• Chapter 6. The Peace Movement in France
• Chapter 7. The Peace Movement in Italy
• Chapter 8. The Peace Movement in the United States
• Chapter 9. The Us Nuclear Freeze Campaign: Facts and Fallacies
• Chapter 10. Towards a Comparative Analysis of the Peace Movements
• Notes on Contributors
• Index