Women in Black from several European countries particpated in the mobilisation against NATO during the summit in Strasbourg at the beginning of April.
Together with other groups of women for peace, we held a workshop for which we received various texts for the presentationi and discussion of the "Feminist case against NATO".
A feminist argument against NATO as an international actor is the first part.
One important aspect of the feminist case against NATO is as an actor on the international scene - the worldwide scene of diplomacy, international relations and military policy. Nato creates a bloc of nations. Bloc logic is the old security logic of the Cold War era, disastrously continued into the present. But women don't recognise themselves in this logic of "Atlantic alliance", "fortress Europe", and "Western civilization". By definition it marks some out as Others, threatening gross insecurity to those outside the compliant coalition.
NATO reinforces the idea that nation states are the only units that count in world affairs. Along with the idea of nation as 'fatherland' goes the racist idea of blood and belonging that feminism absolutely rejects because it divides women on ethnic grounds and sets up women as reproducers of race and culture, the ones who pass on the nation's blookline to their children. Secondly, it reinforces the sense that these nations are in a natural hierarchy of strong and weak. In NATO; the USA represents itself as a protector of its weaker juniour partners - women do not welcome this paternalism, which they have experienced first hand as the 'husband and wife' model of human relations.
So feminists say, NATO's logic is a patriarchal logic. We have learned in our years of feminist antimilitarist theory and practice that nationalism, militarism and patriarchy are deeply intertwined and reinforce each other. Capitalism too. Patriarchal gender systems are one of the root causes of militarism and war. Patriarchy and capitalism use war to maintain their dominion. All thse power systems have designs on women and special uses for women that feminism roundly rejects. NATO reflects the mentality that says conflicts can only be resolved with weapons. By contrast, a feminist approach would be dialogue between countries and peoples with mutual learning and respect for worldwide diversity.
NATO is surrounded by secrecy. Some national governments have made the decision to join the NATO bloc without even discussion in parliament. This authoritarianism is totally anti-democratic and excludes ordinary people, especially women, from having any choice or voice in international affairs.
NATO is expanding its scope across the world. It now as 28 members and 29 more states now drawn into what NATO calls its Partnership for Peace. What a joke that expression is! NATO openly admits that it exists to pursue and defend 'interests'. And it is not just NATO. NATO is becoming the security model for Europe too. There is no longer any independent European thought. In 2007, NATO and the European Union signed a declaration creating a partnership around 'shared interests'. Whose interests are these? They are invoked by the rich countries and corporations and concern energy, economy and imperial control. They are certainly not women's interests.
Although the main motive of the Euroepan Economic Community was clearly the advancement of capital, many people, including many women, had hopes that European unity could prevent war in Europe happening again - as we also had hopes of the United Nations.
NATO's rules specifically contradict several clauses of the founding charter of the United Nations. This makes it illegal on five counts under international law. There is a much better model for international cooperation on security already in existence and it deserves strengthening: the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) With 54 member states, it is a 'primary instrument' for early warning, conflict prevention and civil crisis management, but too marginalised and totally underestimated.
Strategies for action at the international level are perhpas the most difficult for us as women. A rare example is in Monique Dental's paper: woemn of the Collectif Feministe 'Ruptures' and other women orgainsed a 'Women Citizens Letter to the French president during the Gulf war calling for an international peace conference. But if, as Mujeres de Negro Svilla write, we can "crack the code of patriarchy", if we can see through it, we can understand that it is a mere myth that international relations is up there in the stratosphere, out of our reach. The diplomats and military policy makers would like us to think that. But it affects our daily lives, it is our natural concern, and it can't be beyond our imagination as women and as feminist antimilitarists!
Workshop documents
