The many ways of pacifism

One major differentiation within pacifism concerns the use of violence. ‘Absolute pacifism’ rejects violence altogether and promotes non-violent actions to oppose war, such as refusing the draft or staging strikes. ‘Conditional pacifism’, on the other hand, accepts the possibility of violence in specific cases, such as self-defense or the protection of vulnerable populations. When exactly the use of violence becomes justified remains a matter of debate.

In contrast to pacifism, antimilitarism rejects the institutionalisation of the military and the glorification of its ideals, though it is not inherently opposed to wars. Thus, while all pacifists are also antimilitarists, not all antimilitarists are automatically pacifists. Socialists, anarchists, and communists have for instance traditionally opposed standing armies as institutions closely linked to imperialism and capitalism. At the same time, they viewed revolutionary struggle and class warfare as necessary conditions for achieving a fairer society. They were thus antimilitarist without embracing pacifism.

In Luxembourg, pacifists began gaining a vocal presence after the First World War. Since the country did not have a standing army, antimilitarism was primarily directed toward the aggressive policies of foreign states, most notably German Nazism and Italian Fascism. With the rise of these two ideologies, absolute pacifism increasingly came under fire as voices advocating for an opposition by any means necessary grew louder. Absolute pacifism gained ground once again during the Cold War with the looming threat of nuclear disaster.

Starting in the 1990s, the appearance of new social movements, such as alter-globalism, marked a new dawn for both pacifism and antimilitarism. The outbreak of global conflicts in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia led to the creation of new activist groups like Jugend fir Fridden a Gerechtegkeet and the Friddensinitiativ. Today, the Friddens- a Solidaritéitsplattform carries the voice of the anti-war movement. The platform strives to remain as inclusive as possible, despite disagreements regarding the means and methods to achieve peace.

Pacifists have consistently promoted arms control as a means to reduce the potential outbreak of a war. The effort to restrict the development, production, and deployment of military arsenals began in earnest during the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, during which participating governments decided to ban aerial bombardment and prohibit the use of poisonous gases.

After the Second World War, the United Nations assumed the task for multilateral disarmament, achieving notable successes by prohibiting biological and chemical weapons alongside treaties regulating nuclear arsenals. In 1988, Luxembourg gifted the famous Non-Violence knotted-gun sculpture by Swedish artist Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd to the UN to honour its role in disarmament, peace and international security. Today, one original stands at the UN headquarters in New York, while a second original is displayed in the Kirchberg district of Luxembourg City.

A pressing new challenge has emerged regarding lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), commonly known as ‘killer robots’, which operate on the battlefield without human intervention. While global efforts to regulate LAWS have not yet been successful, Luxembourg remains a strong proponent of establishing a binding multilateral framework to govern them.

Some of the most significant multilateral successes were achieved through the efforts of civil society. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines, launched in 1992, successfully pressured states to adopt the Ottawa Convention in 1997. Luxembourg ratified this convention in 1999 and subsequently destroyed its entire stockpile of 9,522 anti-personnel mines.

Despite these milestones, the long-term effectiveness of multilateral agreements remains highly vulnerable, as states frequently violate or withdraw from treaties during major geopolitical crises. For example, just seven years after the Second Hague Peace Conference, the outbreak of the First World War witnessed the widespread use of aerial bombings and chemical weapons. More recently, nations bordering Russia, including the Baltic states and Finland, withdrew from the Ottawa Convention.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has severely undermined global arms control efforts, triggering a rapid expansion of military stockpiles and the development of next-generation weaponry worldwide. Even Luxembourg has adapted to this shifting security landscape, opening its doors to the domestic development and production of arms.

In October 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis, which pitted the United States against the Soviet Union, nearly plunged the world into nuclear war. Given their destructive potential, capable of endangering all of humanity, it was clear that multilateral regulations on the development and use of nuclear weapons were needed. Beginning in the 1960s, the UN adopted various international treaties calling for the reduction of nuclear arsenals and aiming to curb their proliferation. One of the first major texts was the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which aims to prevent non-nuclear states from developing the arms. The adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2017 represents another multilateral success in arms control.

Although their existence represents progress, these treaties have not contained the nuclear threat. Since 1968, the number of nuclear countries possessing has increased from 5 to 9. Furthermore, recent years have seen a loosening of the taboo surrounding the use of the weapons, with many nuclear states openly threatening their deployment. The development of miniature weapons further increases the risk of their use. Finally, nuclear powers and their allies remain reluctant to participate in multilateral efforts to ban the weapons, viewing them as a means of deterrence. To date, Luxembourg is not a signatory to the TPNW, just like the other NATO members.

Civil society became involved in the fight against nuclear weapons very early on. In Luxembourg, one of the main demands of the Mouvement national pour la paix, founded in 1949, was their total abolition worldwide. Throughout the Cold War, organisations such as the Association luxembourgeoise pour l’utilisation pacifique de l’énergie atomique or the Résistance médicale aux armes nucléaires advocated for the peaceful use of new technologies. In the 1960s and 1990s, demonstrations took place in Luxembourg against nuclear tests, particularly those conducted by France and China. The high point of civil opposition were the large-scale demonstrations in the 1980s against the installation of nuclear missiles in Europe and for an end to the arms race on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

In 1989, the first Luxembourgish municipality joined the Mayors for Peace campaign, launched in 1982 by the mayor of Hiroshima. Its goal is to achieve a ban on nuclear weapons by mobilising municipalities and local communities. Luxembourg was one of the most committed countries, with more than 50% of its municipalities participating in the project. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a global citizens’ initiative also present in Luxembourg, has been working since 2007 to pressure on governments to abolish nuclear weapons.

Opposition to the militarisation of Luxembourg and Western Europe was long intertwined with opposition to NATO and the national contributions stemming from membership in this military alliance. The most virulent criticism came from the left, particularly the Luxembourg Communist Party (KPL), the only party to vote against Luxembourg’s accession to NATO in the parliamentary votes of 31 May 1949.

The establishment of military bases, such as those at Capellen in 1961 and those at Bettembourg, Sanem and Dudelange some twenty years later, also provoked criticism among the civilian population. The demand for Luxembourg’s withdrawal from NATO culminated in the protests of the 1980s during the Euromissile Crisis. Other events, such as the rearmament of West Germany in the 1950s, launched so soon after the Nazi atrocities to create a solid front line in Western Europe against the Soviet bloc, deeply shocked the Luxembourg population, far beyond left-wing circles.

Opposition to NATO intensified after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the military alliance decided not to dissolve. In 1999, NATO launched a bombing campaign in Yugoslavia without UN approval. While this was illegal, NATO justified it on humanitarian grounds. For peace activists, NATO has since instrumentalised human rights to justify imperialist interventions on a global scale. Some also attribute NATO’s expansion as the trigger for the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

From the moment the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 opened the door for a common defense policy, civil society expressed its fears of the militarisation of the European Union. The anti-militarist mobilisations coincided with the rise of the alter-globalisation movement in Europe and around the world, which advocates for a more democratic and equitable global economy. The protests culminated in the campaign against the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in 2005, which was accused of gradually leading to the creation of a European military power pursuing imperialist aims. In this context, the participation of the EU—including Luxembourg—in conflicts abroad, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, was strongly condemned.

When the government of Luxembourg instituted compulsory military service for men on 30 November 1944, it justified this decision by citing international commitments stemming from new alliances, particularly obligations to other NATO partners. This position was also supported by several centre-right associations.

However, this new situation was not universally welcomed in a country accustomed to not having a professional army. As early as 1947, organisations—particularly youth associations with left-leaning political views—called for the abolition of the military draft. During the 1950s, youth from across the political spectrum demanded a reduction from 12 to 6 months. These demands were motivated, in particular, by growing criticism of officers accused of abuse of power and corruption. Gradually, the abolition of military service became a near-unanimous demand among young Luxembourgers. Cases of desertion are also known, but this was a relatively rare phenomenon.

Finally, compulsory military service was abolished in 1967. This decision resulted not only by growing opposition, but also from a lack of resources to maintain a modern army. Compulsory military service was retained only for certain public sector professions, such as the police, postal service, and customs before being completely abolished starting from the late 1990s. Since then, the Luxembourg army has been composed entirely of volunteers.

Despite this, the national army remained a target of Luxembourgish pacifist and anti-militarist groups. Jugend fir Fridden a Gerechtegkeet, in particular, opposed recruitment campaigns in schools and student fairs, and organised sit-ins and demonstrations in front of army stands or during military ceremonies. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Minister of Defense Yuriko Backes raised the possibility of reinstating compulsory military service, as other European countries had done. Although some voices rallied against this project, it did not provoke widespread protests among young people.