THE EVENINGS (DE AVONDEN, VPRO)
Dutch Radioprogramme

Sarah Verroen interviews Peace-activist Gerard van Alkemade, 19-2-2003
Transcript of an interview held on Dutch radio (VPRO) with Gerard van Alkemade, Peace-activist who died on 26-8-2004.
Translation: Marie Serraris

Gerard van Alkemade is the writer of a biography about the renowned Dutch Peace-activist Kees Koning who died 8 years ago, in 1996. Like Kees Koning, Gerard van Alkemade is very much against any form of violence.

Q: What does a Peace-activist do all the time. And why fulltime?
A: Fulltime because I have a job as the executive secretary for our organisation: Hague Peace Platform. I take care that our organisation runs properly.

Q: What makes you do it fulltime? In the past you were leading a different kind of life. You were a filmer. You also just finished a biography on the life of Kees Koning. What happened to your filmmaking?
A: Yes, I filmed a lot in the past. Also at the request of the Dutch ministry of Development under then minister Jan Pronk. In India, but specifically in Latin America. I made a film on the colonisation of Amazonia in those days and other films too. Indeed: I gave up that line of work because there was a great need for activating people in my own country, to go out and demonstrate on the streets. At first there was the issue of the neutron bombs, then came the nuclear missiles. This is very important because the problems facing people in Latin America are the result of western policies, as everybody knows these days. I made many films on many such issues. These conditions were always very apparent during my work as a filmer.

Q: Are you saying that you are against any war, anywhere, anytime? Despite e.g conditions as they were around the second world war? Are you against the invasion of the allied forces?
A: This is a difficult one. But it should be understood that Hitler was able to raise a big army: he motivated mothers to sacrifice their sons. The Pacifist movement of those days in Germany, Western Europe ánd the United States was being ignored. We have been thrown into prison before, during and after the nazi-era.

Q: There have always been pacifists and there have been people who want to wage war.
A: Yes.

Q: But the real question is if one should retaliate or not, looking at serious situations like the nazitime.
A: I can´t agree with retaliation. I am convinced that wars should be stopped. Even considering the conditions and amount of freedom we have here in Holland, to be an active pacifist, for which I am grateful. But everything should be done to demilitarise and achieve an end to wars.

Q: But mostly, people are not totally pacifist minded: they weigh the pros and cons of a given situation and decide on that basis to be for or against starting a war. You, on the other hand, will always be against starting any war.
A: Yes.

Q: Does that, retrospectively, include such an event as the allied forces undertook at the end of the second world war, should they not have intervened, whatever the consequences?
A: Deliberating on how to deal with someone like Hitler, and whether or not to go about it with the help of allied forces, to who indeed we owe a large part of our presentday freedom, and if it was really necessary to operate as they actually did, translating it to our present day situation, then I say No, we should definitely not prepare for more wars, even if it comes down to someone like Hitler. What we do have to do is prepare for a big PeaceSound. That is what we have to prepare for. We should not be paying attention to building strong armies, Apache helicopters and nuclear weapons as NATO does and the Americans are presently showing us in the Gulf region. Every time there is an attack by the american army in Iraq, we hold a protest-meeting that very same day, at 19.00 hours in front of the american embassy in The Hague.

Q: Is there a chance you might ever think differently? With issues like oil or 9/11 or facing threats from someone like Saddam Houssein, who is likely to have weapons of mass destruction (supplied by none other than the United States..): could you, at any time, think that something should be done to eliminate the threat, remove a man like mr. SH? Because he’d be shooting them at Israel at any time.
A: No, I can’t imagine anything like it.

Q: Even if you knew ahead that a man like mr. SH was planning to hit Israel in say a month time. Would you still be against it?
A: Yes. Even then I would be against it. I would at all times prolong the Peace Message and plead for demilitarisation. And I don’t want to speak with my tongue in cheek either: like pretending there needs to be a last, very effective little war or a last little extra bombblast on Baghdad. All of this is a deviation from what life is all about on our planet, which is an undiluted PeaceSound. That is what I and the organisations that I work with want to resound.

Q: Maybe you wouldn’t have much of a world left over, considering nuclear weapons and whoever posesses them. With all the superdestructive armoury around the world… This is why many people justify starting a war in the first place. This is the way things work on our planet.
A: Quite true: it will be a long process but we are always sure that it is possible for people in general to lead a peaceful life on this earth. People of different backgrounds: colour, creed or nationality: we know it is possible.

Q: Then, theoretically, you should be willing to take responsibility for large parts of the world being phased out, obliterated, kaput…
A: No, definitely not. People who live for peace are never responsible for such things. The wrongdoers are. Of course all responsibility squarely rests on them.

Q: But if you don’t respond to anything?
A: But we dó respond… We promote an incredibly good cause: the case for Peace, demilitarisation. I’m sorry to say that slowly, reluctantly this is also being accepted by the United Nations, they are slow paced when it comes to these issues. Every year, conferences on disarmament are being held though their impact has, alas: what a big shame it is, diminished quite substantially. These conferences are held every year, for an update on the world situation. I support these kind of elements in our society.

Q: Do you remember the moment you decided to become a fullly fledged pacifist and that you were against war at all times, under any conditions?
A: That was the moment I refused military service in 1964. I was already quite a bit older then, since I had already done my regular military service. It was on the occasion of a repeal, some years later.

Q: So up to then you could not be considered a pacifist?
A: No, I knew nothing about it. I had never even heard of the possibility to refuse military service.

Q: So you regarded it all as normal: armies, wars being fought…
A: Yes, up to the moment that I met a brother of a friend of mine who told me he was being locked up because he was refusing military service. It didn’t seem wise to me since he was due to leave the army anyhow, within a few months. This guy, who was some years older than me, made me realise that I didn’t want to be used as a pawn over some misunderstanding between nations, groups, people or states.

Q: What was it that really cut you to the bone, what was it he said to you?
A: Actually, the fact that in the army you are being trained and prepared, physically and mentally, to kill people. You are prepared and you learn about such things in the military service, and you are supposed to practice on dolls, sticking bayonets in them, and even to make a further twist to aggrevate the wound…

Q: So before, those kind of things didn’t bother you?
A: No, they didn’t. It looked like a necessary evil: it all came down to my own level of acceptance.

Q: Would it be fair to suggest that what drives you must be in your DNA: it kept you going all your life! Something must have triggered it. What was it…?
A: Maybe. Maybe. But it would take a psychologist to work that one out…

Q: What is your background, what were your parents like?
A: Interesting. Maybe there are things to consider there. Like my father who was not a particularly gentle man, there were some inequities in our thoughts. He was rather militaristic in his approach to things towards me: his little son. He was not aggressive but wielded his stick of authority, authority he borrowed from the Bible. “The rod will not be spared” as is written in the Holy Scriptures. Which caused some problems between us. I found it all extremely unfair, very unfair. It made me angry.

Q: Is that an anger which was tranformed into idealism?
A: Possibly. But I do believe that mostly it comes from study and reflection.

Q: What kind of books did you read?
A; During my university years I read works of people like Marx who is not a pacifist but who did have a particular insight in life. I went to university studying non-western sociology which made me understand more, also from historic points of view. History was an important part of my studies. I came to understand the enormous diversity in the motivations of people to start wars and be prepared to kill each other.

Q: So you went on analysing, studying and broadening your perspectives on things?
A: Yes. What I encountered first was militarism in Latin America. Seeing the colonels and generals who initiated a socalled ‘revolution’ in Peru. At the time, I really didn’t believe in it anymore. I went there and studied small groups of resistance, groups who were preparing for armed revolution, trained in Cuba. They were spread out through the Peruvian Andes on three different locations. Their uprising started in 1966, shorlty after which american fightersbombers appeared on the scene: they decimated the groups with napalm… Some of the Peruvian survivors came to pretty high positions afterwards in the socalled revolutionary government, in 1968.

Q: So you established your views in your early twenties, through study, reading plenty of books, the practical side. You intensified it, elaborated on it and founded a solid base. Did you ever in your life have a change of heart, a change of view on things or changes of thought? Did time have an influence on your thinkingprocess throughout the years?
A: Well, one important basic issue is the need to fight, the need to prepare for conflict. Preparing for Hitler, of which we spoke earlier. Since my refusal in 1964 to join the army I have been convinced that what we really should be doing is to prepare for peace and disarmament.

Q: Does this mean you haven’t changed your views since 1964? Didn’t your convictions grow or change?
A: The only change that came was through more knowledge.

Q: Most people have a change of heart every now and then. Even if anything in particluar happens anywhere in the world, it can change people’s opinions.
A: Of course. The communists of the past are a case in point. Many of them are now columnists for renowned magazines.

Q: Are you still a communist?
A: No, rather a pacifist communist, or pacifist socialist. Those terms are good options.

Q: You were a member of the Pacifist political party, not of the communist party. This means you were always devoted to pacifism.
A: Yes.

Q: How is it possible you never changed your mind about things?
A: I’m quite happy with the results of my studies, deliberations and reflections. I know how very necessary it is to work for peace.

Q: Maybe it borders on religion: christian, muslim, those people don’t change in their beliefs either. Are you a religious man?
A: I’m a religious atheist.

Q: I don’t mean a true belief in God, but a true belief in Pacifism.
A: Ok, yes I am a true believer in the necessity to create peaceful relations worldwide.

Q: While you know that will never be…
A: Never say never..You shouldn’t be totally pessimistic about that… It will be a long, hard road: slavery was officially abandoned , a long time ago. But we all know slavery is not a thing of the past. Still I believe that peoples from different locations, backgrounds and colour could live well together.

Q: Some kind of evolution.
A: Yes, indeed. It’s an evolutionary phase of humanity.

Q: Does that imply that we are doing better than a 1000 or even 2000 years ago? Because obviously, that is not the case.
A: Eric Hobsbawm made an extensive study on the 20th century thé most destructive age of all: in that century barbarism reigned supreme, compared to all previous ages. So your remark on this is quite justified. Logically, people are sceptical about the possibility for lasting peace, our 3d millenium didn’t start very well either. We must be frank about that.

Q: So really, I don’t see it happening.
A: Pacifism, working for peace cannot not be reduced to working for disarmament only. Good human relations must also be promoted. And the Plea for Justice: all very important. We must plead for all the issues the leftist political parties held high during their hey’days of the 1960’s and ‘70’s: I still believe in them.

Q: Hasn’t that become a bit difficult? These movements were big in the past: those were the times their ideas were reflected through some leftist political parties. But you have seen all of that disappear.
A: That is a sad fact. But for as long as I stay in good health it will not bother me.

Q: Doesn’t it make you feel lonely? To see it diminish, not grow?
A: Yeah. I’m astonished to see friends and others around me who refused to serve in the army in the past, and who’s voices are numb these days. They don’t get excited about much anymore. You pointed that out before.

Q: What is your judgement on those people? Of all the ex-commnunists?
A: I am amazed… I am quite mystified on how they kept up their credibility. Quite a few of them started writing colums for newspapers and magazines: I think a couple of newspaperagents will have been chuckling over their demise.

Q: But the real question is why those people should not live the way they do, is it not permissable to have a change of heart, to see things differently? Is there anything wrong with that?
A: What mistakes did they make in the past? Which wrong ideas did they have? I think socialism and communism came up with a range of highly developed ideas and views on society.

Q: But neither Russia nor China came very far with that. Which was one reason why people stepped out. Do you mind that much? Do you feel betrayed or do you think people are serving their own interests?
A: Both these issues could play a part. I’m not sure I could call it treacherous: I’m not clear on that. I dó think it is deplorable to have seen the social revolution in Russia, even though it started out with violence, going to pieces and turn into Stalinism. I really found that hard to bear. Though this does not disqualify the most important ideas that come from communist ideology.

Q: Did you never feel any doubts about communism? A number of reasons could be given for that.
A: No, I didn’t. Though I am very much opposed to coercion and compulsive behaviour. And I see that happening all over the world, or in most countries. I see it going on in the Americas, also in Europe, by which I mean that it is compulsory these days to have email: to computerise our lives.

Q: Don’t you have a computer?
A: I must have a computer for the magazines I’m working for. But I absolutely refuse to communicate through email. All these gadgets become waste products. Environmental awareness is being totally overlooked.

Q: Which modern equipment do you not posess? Where do you draw the line?
A: I don’t own a cd-player. I do have a great grammophoneplayer and quite a nice and big collection of jazz records. I have a radio, but not a videoplayer. And I have a faxapparatus, necessary for running the magazine. I was whipped into it, it was a choice I had to make: to decide whether to profile myself with all these nearly compulsory modern shiny gadgets or to rest in being the editor of these magazines: De Vredes Koerier, ‘t Kan Anders.

Q: Where do you draw the line with modern technology? Don’t you think it’s fair to say that e.g. the beauty of our emailfacility is that it brings us together the world over?
A: Of course, that is grand. But it does all consume a lot of electricity, nuclear electricity. All these apparatus run on electricity.

Q: I do suppose you have a refrigerator.
A: Yes, well: even that is a bit awkward. We must be aware that all of this stuff ends up as waste. We have no proper recycling processes available. Leftist parties have immersed themselves in modern technology. The anarchist movement proclaims their movement has survived thanks to the computer.

Q: How many of you are there? How many who are as principalled as you are?
A: Speaking of my aversion to the digital revolution I receive very little support. But on the peacefront we have seen big developments: last week in Amsterdam we saw the proof of that.

Q: Why do you think this is happening? In the recent past we’ve seen Afghanistan, Kosovo and the 1st Gulf War. All that didn’t generate large demonstrations. Apparently now, the mood has changed: do you think people find the dangers of these days more threatening, more risky, why are they more involved? Or is it Bush? Are people maybe more afraid of Bush than they were of Clinton?
A: Yes. There is a sense of apprehension these days. It is the feeling of fear that brought all these people together in Amsterdam last week, where we presented a petition of 400.000 signatures for peace. In 1983, october 29th, there were some 550.000 protesters. People were preoccupied with fear in those days: they were afraid the world would blow up, in one big bang.

Q: Can it be compared to the kind of fear people feel nowadays?
A: The renewed feeling of fear comes along with a perception of disaster. The war in Afghanistan has created a lot of chaos.

Q: But why are people so scared nowadays? Why this feeling? These demonstrations didn’t happen with Afghanistan, so why now?
A: People had to get used to things. The first bombs fell on Afghanistan on october 8, 2001 which was very soon after 9/11.

Q: But there wasn’t the same kind of resistance against Kosovo and Afghanistan. Why now?
A: I think there is also another mechanism at work: the undermining of the public notion of the benefits of demonstrations. This undermining is closely linked to the antinuclear demonstrations. The trauma over the whole antinuclear movement being swept aside overnight is still apparent. This is what actually happened: on the 1st of november 1985, after a popular petition had just been held, the Dutch parliament, under pressure from NATO, was being bombarded with addresses of some world leaders like mr. Bush sr. and Mitterand. He tried to impress on the Dutch parliament that it was compulsory to accept cruise missiles on Dutch soil (a present from Reagan…). The same was said by Weinberger: all these political hotshots. At that time, with a tiny margin, the Dutch parliament decided to accept the missiles. The four biggest organisations in the anti-nuclear movement were the IKV (peacemovement among churches), Pax Christie, the Labour Party and the Labour movement. After the acceptance of parliament, those groups suddenly went into a Big Sleep. Suddenly everything was cancelled. All arrangements, there was nothing left. With Mient Jan Faber, as leader of the IKV, up front. That event demobilised the population completely, while millions had been demonstrating before: they turned numb and felt betrayed: deserted by their leaders. And subsequently Mient Jan Faber: he had not been discredited by the press, as the anti cruisemissile movement had turned a blind eye on his betrayal. They were afraid to lose him: this was during the time of the 1st Gulf war. They thought they still needed him and so he should be handled with care. That was a stupid move: of course he and the others in the IKV had betrayed the movement, just like the Labour Party, Labour movement and Pax Christie. The IKV or Mient Jan Faber were loyal to NATO during the runup to the Gulf war and when it started in 1991, and loyal to the American administration. He also supported the big build-up of troops in the region. Identical to the views they hold today. Exactly the same… Many people still believed in Mient Jan Faber, since he had not been discredited by the media. People were still thinking that the IKV stood for the peacemovement in our country. The IKV didn’t join the demonstration against the Gulf war. That’s why people didn’t turn out in great numbers.

Q: Why do so many people turn up now?
A: Because the trauma of the IKV has been digested. It doesn’t play such a big role in people’s lives anymore. It happened 20 years ago.

Q: But this is a worldwide phenomena, while you actually speak of a Dutch affair. Many say that Clinton would have made similar judgments as Bush, though he is a better speaker and sounds less aggressive. Under his leadership the protestdemonstrations would have been less popular than they are now, under Bush.
A: I agree, but am not totally sure. It is a possibility.

Q: Will it help do you think?
A: The demonstrations will certainly help.

Q: It’s noticeable in the reaction of the EU.
A: Yes, true. They have released a statement of blurry dimensions with weak statements. Dangerous talk.

Q: But still declaring that war is a matter of the last resort. The statement doesn’t exclude the possibility of force but it’s more a matter of emphasis. They agree on the necessity to send inspectors there for as long as possible.
A: They should also send inspectors to the USA. They have the largest stocks of nuclear as well as mass destructive weapons. There are still nuclear weapons in Volkel (Holland).

Q: But shouldn’t the distinction be made between a dictator who uses weapons against his own people and Americans who don’t?
A: Yes, indeed: Halabdja, Iraq, 16 march 1988. Saddam Houssein committed a most heinous crime… However you should carefully consider that during that same period, the Americans were bombing Panama. Some estimated 3000 or 4000 people, mostly poverty stricken ghettodwellers, were massacred by Apacheplanes gunfire. And just previous to that, the Americans were attacking Granada.

Q: Are you saying that the Americans (genie) are no better or worse than Saddam Houssein?
A: Yes, I am. Proof is also in their napalm-bombardments on guerillamovements.

Q: But there is still this big difference in attacking your own people or others. I would still like to emphasise the difference.
A: But all Americans are American: north and south. They have always been there: there are many Latin Americans living in the USA and that number will no doubt keep on growing. The role that the US plays in the world can be seen in Afghanistan: Afghans have been dislocated, their way of life has been disrupted, uprooted.

Q: But surely, there is a principal difference between a man like Saddam Houssein who will kill anyone who even slightly disagrees with him, he’s done the most horrific things in ways of torture and murder, and an american who can say anything and vote out his president.
A: That is true. You’re right. Even so: by the charter of the United Nations, a war is not permitted if not under attack. I don’t think war is ever permissable but still: the USA is not under attack from Saddam Houssein, Europe is not under attack either. The fact that he suppresses his own people can Never give rise to a country, a country at whatever 20.000 kilometers away from it, a country which is trying to establish it’s rule over the whole world, to decide he should go and actually drive him out. To drive out Saddam Houssein is a very serious, incredibly dangerous development in the police roll that the USA is playing, which is posing dangers to all of us. Because it is at the cost of the muslim population worldwide and also, critically important, the peoples in the 3d world. It is the rich against the poor in this world.