„Taking forward the anti-war movement internationally”

german-foreign-policy.com: A major international anti-war conference will take place in London on 20 June. What are your expectations?

Kate Hudson: This conference is a very significant development, a view shared by all the organisers – both those in Britain and those we are working with across Europe. It’s very important to stress that although this conference is taking place in Britain it is truly an international conference. Although we’re hosting it we’ve worked collectively to ensure that we’ll have not only many international speakers but also a lot of international participants. Hundreds of people are coming from across Europe to join the deliberations. Attending the conference is not only an opportunity to hear great speeches and feel inspired. It is also an opportunity to come together and have serious strategic discussion, to plan concretely for how the anti-war movement across Europe and beyond can work together and take concrete steps forward.

This is all the more important as we know that state forces, capitalist forces, and governments organise all the time on an international level. There are no national boundaries on their side of the class struggle. So it is absolutely vital that on our side of the class struggle we don’t limit ourselves to our domestic, our national concerns. As an anti-war movement, we have to be organised internationally. If we don’t do that we’re destined to fail. Look, it’s a fact that none of the problems we face are domestic or national problems. They are all international problems, whether it’s war, the climate catastrophe, the rise of the far right. All of those issues are international issues, and we need to deal with them internationally.

The conference in London will be the second one organised by a developing grouping of political forces from all over Europe. The first conference took place last October in Paris, and there is likely be a third one later this year. So, you can see: We are very determined. This is not a one-off but an ongoing process to take the movement forward.

german-foreign-policy.com: You have been active in the anti-war movement for decades. Today, the world is in the midst of an increasing number of wars. Why is that?

Kate Hudson: I would identify two reasons in particular. Firstly, global economic developments which link to great power concerns. Over the last decades, we’ve seen the relative decline of the United States in economic terms. That is not to say that it isn’t still the most powerful economy in the world by many indicators; of course it is. But in some respects, in terms of some indicators, it is clear that the United States is declining. Simultaneously, we have seen the emergence of other economic powers, largely from the Global South, in the last couple of decades. Clearly, China is the most significant example. Its indicators may fluctuate a little, but the trajectory is upwards. Many countries have joined together in the BRICS coalition, a new form of cooperation, economic support and development, arising from the Global South.

The United States essentially doesn’t like that. From the point of view of the anti-war movement, there are parallels with the Cold War. Back then, the United States’ main goal was basically to knock out the Soviet Union and its bloc. This was the case not so much for ideological reasons but because the Soviet Union was a block on the extension of US markets. The United States just wanted to have an open door for their businesses everywhere. After 1989, not only did they have economic freedom, they also had unsurpassed, unrivalled global power. This, in fact, relates to the US's Wolfowitz Doctrine of the early 1990s which you may summarise as: The Americans find themselves the only global superpower, they like it, and they want that situation to continue. In my view, that is still the situation today, and the United States is still fighting to maintain that position. Periodically – remember the war in Iraq – the United States goes through phases of deciding to knock out non-compliant countries – regimes, as they would call their governments - that don’t comply with the economic or strategic vision of the United States.

german-foreign-policy.com: Countries like the ones the United States named “the axis of evil”…

Kate Hudson: Exactly. Just look back: The countries that were George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” some 25 years ago were North Korea, Iraq and Iran. Iraq has been knocked out, but Iran and North Korea are still part of the US's new “axis of evil”, and a number of other countries have been added on. These are countries that don’t share the US vision and do certain things that are actively against it. So periodically, wars are waged by the United States. There are wars that will be about resources, there are wars about reestablishing US dominance – the attacks on Venezuela for example, the imminent attack on Cuba. They are all being waged to knock out states which challenge US supremacy.

The second reason for the rise in the number of wars is the crisis in capitalism. Whatever form capitalism is taking today, it is obviously an unsustainable system that no longer can provide some of the benefits that it used to provide for masses of people in its earlier stages. In the last years, capitalism has thrown up the kind of extreme model of far right characters like Donald Trump who will pursue anything, like extreme racism, the ICE raids, fake news, having laws on the basis of complete lies, nonsense, anti-scientific stuff – it’s just a complete disaster zone. This political nightmare thrown up by the crisis of capitalism adds to the determination of the US to remain top dog trying to defend its supremacy against the emergence of new, very dynamic economic forces elsewhere. Economic forces, by the way, that we hope are thinking things through better than the West – better in terms of what is ultimately beneficial to humanity as a whole. In this situation, the key thing is basically to avoid nuclear war and complete climate breakdown, so that when we come out of this struggle, of this crisis of capitalism, of this attempt by imperialism to maintain itself, come what may, whatever the costs – then, there will still be a world left that can be developed in a better way.

german-foreign-policy.com: So, you wouldn’t agree to what we are constantly being told by politicians and the media: that it is Russia and China that are threatening peace in the world?

Kate Hudson: To be honest, I don’t see evidence for that. I don’t support Russia’s war on Ukraine, but even though I don’t support it, I think there are specific historical and political reasons why it has happened. For me, coming from the peace movement, one of the key reasons is obviously the expansion of NATO - a highly sophisticated, highly resourced, nuclear-armed, military alliance - into the former Soviet bloc, and even into former Soviet republics, and Russia’s sense of vulnerability or sense of being under attack. On Russia’s side there has been longstanding clarity that they don’t want Ukraine to be part of NATO, which would give them a massively extended direct border with NATO. Despite that, there was the apparent move of Ukraine towards joining NATO, plus the ill-treatment of the Russian community within Ukraine, at odds with what the Minsk agreements required about their rights as citizens and about their language. To me, this doesn’t add up to Russia being an imperialist power that is going to attack everyone and everywhere; I see Ukraine as a very specific issue. Of course, there are all kinds of issues I would take with Russia’s political system and with Russia’s politics. But it’s up to the Russian people internally to determine what its own government is, and they will change it when they want to do that. This is not to be decided elsewhere.

And China – I don’t see any evidence of China being militarily aggressive. Obviously, it is increasingly rearming itself including with nuclear weapons which I oppose; I oppose all countries developing nuclear weapons or increasing their stockpiles. One of the problems with countries having war-like build-ups, building up military alliances and having a concentration of troops and military materiel in place, is that other countries will respond. That was the situation with the arms race during the Cold War. We’re having an arms race now, but I would not identify Russia and China as particular leaders in terms of military aggression or being a threat generally to the peace and security of the world as a whole.

german-foreign-policy.com: Let’s have a look at Germany. Germany is expanding its military capabilities at a rate not seen since the 1950s. Chancellor Friedrich Merz aims to make the Bundeswehr the strongest conventional military force in Europe. How do you view this?

Kate Hudson: That’s not good at all. It sounds like a competition with Britain and France, a kind of militaristic nationalism that is being developed. How will the French respond to that? France has nuclear weapons. Is Germany going to develop nuclear weapons? Of course, that would be illegal under international law. Will Germany just disregard international law? Will it put its population at enormous risk by doing so? There are serious risks associated with developing nuclear weapons, never mind making yourself a nuclear target – it’s a crazy idea, and the cost is absolutely extraordinary.

german-foreign-policy.com: Currently there is indeed a debate going on in Germany about possibly developing nuclear weapons. Another option being under discussion is to get access to the French or British nuclear arsenals.

Kate Hudson: France has never assigned its nuclear weapons to NATO. Britain doesn’t have its own nuclear weapons in a strict sense. The nuclear weapons possessed by the UK are not really British-owned and controlled although the government likes to claim they are. Look, a nuclear weapons system has three parts to it. Think about a gun: There’s the hand which holds the gun; then, there is the gun itself, and finally, there is the bullet which is the lethal thing. It’s similar with nuclear weapons. There is a submarine or a jet which carries them around. Then, there is the missile which carries them from the submarine or the plane to the target. Finally, there is the warhead, the explosive on the end. Britain makes its own submarines, but they are a US model and some of the components are delivered from the United States. The missiles come from the United States; we buy or lease them, we have to go back to the US to have them serviced, and so on. The warheads are a joint production. The GPS system is run by the US anyway. And, last but not least, Britain has assigned its nuclear weapons to NATO. If the US decides to pull the plug – bye bye, Britain’s nuclear weapons. If Britain wanted to share them with Germany, what would the United States say about that? Well, probably – you won’t share them, bye bye. If the German government really is serious about that it seems not to have a proper understanding of the real situation.

german-foreign-policy.com: Looking at the deliberations in Germany to maybe develop a German bomb if access to French or British nuclear weapons turns out to be impossible – given your experience in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), what would you advise people in Germany to do?

Kate Hudson: Have a big campaign against it – what else! There was a massive mobilisation in Germany in the 1980s against the Pershing missiles, as well as in Britain and elsewhere, and in the end it was successful. We got rid of all those missiles. There will be opposition at so many levels of society. It’s not only the left which opposes nuclear weapons. For example, faith communities, many religious organisations, are against them as well; the Pope is against nuclear weapons. Ordinary people just don’t want to have nuclear weapons that will blow them, their children and their grandchildren up, when they could have a local swimming pool, nursery, or library instead. There are so many levels of society which you can build a movement from. You can launch a petition, you can organise massive demonstrations, you can call for boycotts, you can have protests at nuclear sites like there are already in Germany, at Büchel. These are things people did in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s when CND was founded. You work with the trade unions, you try and boycott the construction, prevent the construction taking place, start non-violent direct action, organise big demonstrations – you just do everything to absolutely put a block on it.

german-foreign-policy.com: There are protests going on currently in Germany, but it’s less about nuclear weapons, it’s mostly about compulsory military service. There have been school strikes against it since the end of last year. Is there anything similar happening in the UK or in other European countries?

Kate Hudson: Germany is the place I’ve heard about most. Elsewhere in Europe, there may be some development. In Britain there’s not a big movement specifically on this as nothing like compulsory military service is currently under discussion. But there are some student organisations developing against it; the idea is to try and stop it before it starts. But at the same time there is quite a lot of work going on here against the military in education. About a year ago, the government introduced its Strategic Defence Review which we opposed by publishing the Alternative Defence Review. Keir Starmer was talking about a 'whole-of-society' approach to preparing for war, which would mean the militarisation of our society. It means enabling not only attempts to recruit people in schools and universities into the military, but also introducing the military and military topics in education itself. It means investment in universities to develop military research, to promote jobs in the military, in arms production, and it means very much trying to market military production, and the so-called defence sector, as not only a potential employer but as something which would drive the economy in a positive way. As we know that is a myth, of course. That’s what a lot of young people largely in the higher education sector are now organising around, both on staff level and on the student level as well.

Talking of young people: Most of them have zero interest in going and fighting a war in trenches abroad. That is not on their agenda. By and large – even if you can’t overgeneralize it – younger generations tend to be more progressive on all social issues. It’s young people who are much more hopeful and inclusive and accepting people as they are; they don’t see race as a problem, for example. They don’t want to be sucked into a war and be killed. It’s pretty simple, isn’t it? The fact that corruption in high places in politics is being so exposed now adds to that: Many young people can’t see any reason why they should do what these corrupt self-seeking politicians want them to. Let’s hope that through the organisation of the younger generations - and at the same time the continuing organisation of the older generation - we are able to defeat these very, very bad developments in society. Look at the Palestine movement in Britain: It has been and is a remarkable thing in terms of the scope of the mobilisation and the breadth and the diversity of it. We have seen huge marches and all kinds of action that people have been taking in Britain. It’s a very inclusive, very diverse mass movement. That is the kind of cooperation we need. It can work in the anti-war movement as well.

More on the struggle against militarisation in Europe: “Wages not Weapons”, “Down with weapons, up with wages”, “Footing the bill for both” and “The peace perspective”.