Pro-War Greens Debate

The pro-war Greens debate refers to divergent interpretations of the commitment of Green political parties to peace and nonviolence. The controversy has implications beyond the immediate issue of peace and nonviolence, and extends to the issue of the overall credibility of the leadership of the Greens on a range of other issues.

The Greens Official Position
Greens political parties are generally associated with environmentalism, although Green political parties are also quite clear that a commitment to peace and nonviolence is also an important plank in their platform. Bob Brown and Peter Singer state that a general principle of the Greens is to "adopt and promote non-violent resolution of conflict" (1996, p.194), Jan Pakulski refers to the Greens as part of a wider "eco-pax movement" (1991, pp. 158-194), and a commitment to peace and non-violence figures centrally in the documentation of the Global Greens (2001, pp.4-5, 15-16).

Critique
An essay by Australian academic and peace researcher Dr James Page has challenged this commitment. In 'The Problem of the Pro-War Greens', published in the political journal Australian Quarterly, Dr Page points out that there are many instances where Greens politicians have actually supported military action or where their policies run counter to international law (2007, pp. 23,24). Dr Page argues that it is only all too easy to manipulate the groundswell of public sentiment in favour of peace for electoral advantage and that those thinking of supporting the Greens ought to look carefully at the Greens' actual record before giving such support (2007, p.25).

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu