Resistance, disarmament and the army
Jacek Czaputowicz
In the Polish People’s Republic, the history of the army is written in black letters. The only army victories have been over its own society–in 1956, 1970, and 1981–and its only victorious foreign campaign was carried out in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Those facts have existed in the consciousness of the Polish opposition, but the conviction has dominated that all demands concerning the army are unreal and indeed unsafe. In this view, the army is one of the pillars of the political system, and any demand for changes in this pillar would inevitably bring about soviet intervention.
Another part of society has transferred a fondness for the Polish military from the period of the struggle for independence and the sovereign polish state to the present armed forces. This is the source of the uncritical cult of the uniform and of idealization of the military forces of People’s Poland.
Until now, the view has dominated in opposition circles that the disarmament process can only be to the advantage of the Soviet Union, since it yields time and resources for the modernization of the Russian economy. with a strengthened Soviet Union, Poland would have less “hope for independence, especially since political changes in the USSR are superficial and do not change the imperial character of the state.
These views must be revised. One cannot help but notice that the disarmament process is already increasing the margin of freedom in Poland. The authorities’ concern with their image in the eyes of the West creates a chance for political concessions. There appears a hope in the long-run for change in the existing status quo in Europe: dissolution of the military blocs, withdrawal of armies to their own territories, and integration of a divided Europe. For disarmament to be rooted in a well-informed society which accepts and understands its sense, reorganization of the political order in Eastern Europe will be essential.
The necessity of political changes within the framework of disarmament should be emphasized by the opposition. It is difficult to talk about disarmament and about the means of assuring peace without touching on the essence of the danger to peace–the military. It is not technical matters-the quantity of arms, timetables for their reduction, means of mutual supervision, etc.–which are the most important in the process of disarmament. Arms reduction, which is what Wojciech Jaruzelski is suggesting, is insufficient for assuring peace. What is necessary is to change the function of the military, its position and image in society, and its internal relations.
Today in Poland, criticism of the army has become an idea uniting the post-Solidarity generation. Many young people are questioning the sense of military service. Many are refusing to serve or to take the military oath, with various motives: religious, moral, political, or simply for fear of degradation in the army. Sociological research shows that youths are accepting the requirement of military service less and less.
A similar process is taking place in other Eastern European countries and in the Soviet Union. The “Moscow Trust Group” in the Soviet Union, “Peace and Human Rights” in the GDR, and the “Lublijana Peace Group” in Yugoslavia are similar to Poland’s Freedom and Peace movement in their goals, in their methods of action, and in their social composition. The Lvov Trust Group, which has arisen in recent months, carried out its first demonstration under the slogans of the right to alternative service and the withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan. In Czechoslovakia, Charter 77 has dealt with the problem of disarmament for several years the famous “Prague Appeal” has shaped the present character of the peace movement to a large extent. Hungarian Miklas Haraszti has proposed in The New York Times that the problem of the right to refuse military service be included in the sessions of the Helsinki Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The independent seminars which occurred in Warsaw, Budapest, and Moscow in 1987 could become the beginning of cooperation.
19 KOS, No. 1/131, January 1988.
Joint activity, such as the appeal to the CSCE about refusal of military service initiated by the Hungarian opposition, undoubtedly increases hope for success.
In the West the right to refuse military service is respected-an exception is Greece, which has committed itself to change its regulations within a few months. Restoration of the legal balance of the two systems is in the interest of the West. In its resolution of December17, 1987, the European Parliament demanded the guarantee of the right to refuse military service for conscientious reasons. This resolution, passed in connection with the international hunger strike of “Freedom and Peace” and the “Italian Radical Party,” calls for the freeing of those imprisoned for refusal of military service in Eastern Europe. On March 5, 1987, the UN Commission for Human Rights recognized the refusal of military service as a fundamental human right and appealed to the governments of UN members to respect that right. The communist countries abstained.
Recognition of the right to alternative service, although very important, should not be the only aim. Society f s demands regarding the sphere of military affairs should go in two directions. First, they should address the reduction of the significance and presence of the army in social life. Second, they should address reform of the military itself as an institution. Here are some sample demands:
1. It is necessary to reduce military expenditures. The present level of spending constitutes too large burden for society. According to official data, ten times more is spent on armaments than on science and five times more than on culture and art. International detente does not justify such high levels of spending.
2. It is necessary to reduce the size of the forces by shortening the length of army service to one year. The present length of service, 2 or 3 years, is not justified by training considerations. In Western countries, military service is significantly shorter: in Austria–6 months, in Finland–8, in Denmark and Sweden–9, in France, Italy, and Norway–12, in West Germany and Spain–15. No obligatory draft for military service exists in Great Britain and the United States. In some Eastern European countries, the GDR and Hungary, military service is also shorter than in Peoplef s Poland–only 18 months.
3. Summer camps, the previous form of military education for university students, should be restored and the possibility of alternative service to these camps should be introduced. It is necessary to release farmers from military service; as provided in Polish law.
4. It is necessary to introduce a legislative prohibition of political and ideological indoctrination of soldiers. The military should respect the right of soldiers and professional officers to unobstructed religious practices. This right now only exists formally.
5. Persecution for beliefs, degradation, and cruelty to soldiers should be effectively prosecuted by law. Especially inadmissible is playing one group of soldiers off inst another, the “old” army against the “new.”
6.It is necessary to change the formula of the soldier’s oath, limiting its content to duties to the fatherland. Part of the officers’ corps, including General Jaruzelski, consider the oath in its present form to be “somewhat outmoded.” In order not to give the impression of yielding to social pressure, there has be en an unofficial proposal to connect a change in the, oath’s content with the planned revision of the Constitution. That, however, will be too distant in the future.
For people refusing military service for conscientious reasons, it is necessary to introduce a socially useful alternative service, with its principles subject to public debate. It is necessary to stop propaganda against conscientious objectors and to release those imprisoned for refusal of military service. The rules of compensation for work in alternative service–presently 850 zlotys per month regardless of the type of work–should be changed.
Fulfillment of the above demands would be a real step in the direction of disarmament. utilization of the army for aims contradictory to the interests of society, either within or outside the country, would become impossible.
January 1988
