MIM Notes 187 June 1 1999

It is easy being green, but it's best to be red:
German Greens prove Leninism necessary

On May 13th, the German Green Party caved into 
its militarist Social Democratic Party allies 
and voted down a resolution to end NATO bombing 
of Yugoslavia. This was a reflection on the 
rank-and-file of the Green Party and not just 
its government leaders who had already supported 
NATO's actions. The Green Party stance proves 
that the Greens are no alternative to real 
internationalist communism when it comes to 
leading the peace movement.

The Social Democrats currently rule in Germany 
in an alliance with the Greens. The Green 
Party's votes in the German legislature 
guarantee power for Social Democratic Party 
leader Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to rule in 
Germany.(1) Voting for the resolution "would 
probably have brought down the Government of the 
Social Democratic Chancellor," according to the 
New York Times and MIM.(2) The Green Party could 
only oppose the NATO bombing by quitting the 
government and pushing along new elections or a 
different marriage partner for the ruling Social 
Democrats.

Greens usually list "nonviolence/peace" as one 
of their top principles. A description for 
German Greens reads as follows: "In the field of 
security and peace, Bndnis 90/Die Grnen advocate 
a policy of non-military solutions to conflicts. 
We want to strengthen the OSCE process instead 
of enlarging the NATO. German peace-keeping 
contingents should operate only under a clear 
international mandate and not be structured as 
military forces."(3)

Yet, Green parties never require anti-militarism 
of its imperialist country members. Hence, how 
Greens put together their supposed values is 
rather murky and we get the results we got in 
Germany.

In World War I, it was the "Social-Democrats" of 
various European countries who went back on 
their windbag speeches and resolutions and 
supported the war. Today, the role of key 
warmonger may fall on the German "Green Party."

The Greens are a grab-bag of various 
environmentalists, pacifists, anarchists and 
ultra-democrats. The average Green is a foggy 
friend of the proletariat. In the May 15th MIM 
Notes, we reported some internal strife in the 
Green Party over the issue, but thus far, the 
majority appears to support the leadership. Just 
as in the main right-wing bourgeois party the 
Christian Democrats, 68 percent of Greens 
support the bombing. Apparently two out of three 
NATO citizens support the bombing and the 
average Green is no different.(4)

Over two-thirds of all Germans do not believe 
bombing will work, but it does not matter what 
party one is in on that question. Likewise, the 
members of all parties oppose sending ground 
troops. Of note on the question, the Social 
Democratic Party has above average support for 
sending ground troops; although The Economist 
article does not explain if the difference is 
"statistically significant."(4)

To the credit of the PDS (ex-phony communists), 
only 27 percent support the bombing. Given that 
party's history of supporting the Soviet Union, 
we cannot be too sure there is much principled 
in that political opposition either.(4)

In former East Germany, the majority opposes the 
bombing. Thus the ex-communists may make some 
headway in bourgeois elections there.(4)

Meanwhile, in other tensions for Germany, a 
deputy Defense Minister said he doubted initial 
NATO claims that an outdated map caused the 
bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. 
Likewise, a German newspaper reported a senior 
NATO official as saying NATO had a correct map 
with the Chinese Embassy clearly marked.(1)

The Greens could have been a falling domino 
against bourgeois stability if they had come out 
against the war. From MIM's point of view, the 
German situation is again one where war 
clarifies political reality. Trailing off into 
"deep ecology" religion, witchcraft and other 
unscientific and petty-bourgeois philosophies, 
the Greens just do not have an intellectual 
basis for opposing the war. It is further proof 
that vaguely populist strategies do not work 
when the chips are down or when it counts. There 
is no short-cut to social change; the 
painstaking work of Leninism is necessary--
building a party and coming to a scientific 
understanding of imperialism and war.

Notes: 

1. Peter Graff, "Russia Takes Hard Line on 
Kosovo Mediation," Reuters, 13 May 1999.

Redistributed at 
http://www.peopledaily.com.cn/english/features/K
osovo/home.html

2. The New York Times 14 May 1999.

3. 
http://www2.europeangreens.org/europeangreens/ge
rmany.html

4. The Economist 24 April 1999, pp. 50-1.