Few political campaigns in recent years have achieved the tremendous impact of the Greenham Common women's peace camp. Valerie Coultas interviewed one of the best known Greenham campaigners, Helen John.
A lot of people have talked about the particular contribution women have made to the fight against the missiles and how Greenham symbolises that. Can you explain your view of the contribution women have made?
Well I think that particularly in the West the contribution we can make is to challenge our authorities in a way that we know we're not going to lose our lives, Hopefully we will challenge the authorities in such a manner that they will re-examine the position, because they always maintain that they're protecting us. I think it really does need women to say very strongly that they're not being protected, they're being endangered by the measures the government are taking.
Throughout many parts of the world it's not possible to take non-violent direct action, The authorities are very much more in control of their populations, and I don't doubt that in South America for example if we were making this protest, or in Guatemala, we would be dead,
The most important contribution we have to make is that in the West we can reverse the tendencies and perhaps allow people all over the world to get back to being able to make non-violent direct action, rather than having to die by the bullet.
So do you think non-violent direct action is something that the whole of the CND movement should support?
Well it is something the CND movement supports. It made that very clear at the conference. It made it very clear by electing those of us who are very closely associated with the camp onto the National Council and now some of us are on the Executive Committee, I think that proves conclusively that the majority of people in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament support what is happening.
Yes, but I mean rather that non-violent direct action was something that at Greenham only a section of women were involved in. There were far more women that came to the camp for the Sunday demonstration and who supported it than would ever get directly involved in that kind of action.
Well, considering that 2,000 women actually did take part on the Monday, that's a tremendous step forward. Bearing in mind that women are not encouraged to take any direct line regarding their own lives, and the fact that we've only been going for 16 months it shows a dramatic increase in awareness. I don't know whether Margaret Thatcher would be able to get 30,000 women to come out for any of her policies, and I don't think she would get 2,000 to put themselves in direct confrontation with the authorities. It's dangerous to play a numbers game. There's been a shift in awareness and that is having its effect.
All I'm trying to say is that I think that there are different forms of action that people will take in pursuit of their opposition to the missiles. On 12 December masses of women from all sorts of different backgrounds came together to take action. Even though that wasn't non-violent direct action as such it had a profound impact.
But it was non-violent direct action. It was an illegal act. To surround a military establishment is illegal. But it was done on a Sunday when there was no work going on in the base and so it was allowed. Don't get confused over this. The fact that they were deliberately blocking the base was illegal and they were prepared to do that, and they did it.
But it still seems to me to be mass action ie it's masses of people not just a few individuals going and getting arrested.
Well I'd be much happier if the majority of the people in the trade unions who actually produce the wherewithal to make the base function would stop doing that. But their argument is that if they do that, they'll be out of a job. Our argument to them is if they don't stop doing what they're doing, they won't have any jobs, they'll be dead. I don't know how to make them activate themselves.
That gets to the question of what strategy you have for the trade unions on CND. You've said you think that people in the armaments industry should give up their jobs. I think there's an alternative to that — that is that people in the armaments industry strike to oppose Cruise missiles.
It's no good just striking is it? On a particular day they all go on strike and on the following day they're all back doing the same evil business. It's a mild hiccup in the chain. I want to see the chain absolutely broken.
But Greenham on the 12th was one day, yet it had a tremendous impact. The Tories now are beefing up for a massive campaign. A one-day strike I think would be beneficial to state to the government that there were people now who were so seriously concerned about the policies that they were very disturbed indeed and wanted them reversed, But after all if you're working every day making bombs what's the point of being concerned?
But it's not their individual decision to make bombs. People need jobs to survive.
But they are becoming aware. If I was to point out to somebody, if I was to say to you that the particular occupation you were doing was harmful not just to you but to practically every man, woman and child on the planet, and then you turned round and said well, that's not my responsibility. Whose responsibility would it be?
Everything that people produce, in a sense, is not their responsibility. Because the way in which production is determined is according to the law of capital and not according to the law of the individual. Therefore they're forced to produce goods because they have to work.
They're not forced. If in this country we had a military dictatorship and you got shot if you didn't work, then I would say that people didn't have a lot of choice. But it hasn't come to that yet. The people who get up and go to work in this country, do so of their own free will. If there are already over 5 million unemployed in this country I don't really want to see the armaments industry protected.
I'd much rather see extra unemployment if you wish. Then we could start looking for policies that will bring alternative strategies into effect, because they're not happening at the moment. Everybody else is unemployed and the armaments manufacturers are happily at work.
The armaments manufacturers are making money out of it, yes, making a lot of money. The problem is the people that work in those industries do not have a choice to say, 'I don't like what I'm producing so I'd rather be on the dole' because that means absolute poverty.
I disagree with you. They have a choice. They're exercising their choice to go to work and look after their own interest and they are negating their responsibility of moral choice.
But people's morals are determined to a certain extent by their material livelihoods. It's very good to have morals if people can afford to live. The people whose morals we should be focussing on are the people who control the process of production, not the people that work in the industries. We should be asking them, 'will you take strike action in support of CND's campaign because you're directly involved?' The focus has got to be on the people who take the political decisions to produce arms.
I don't disagree that we have to get to those who are the decision makers. But you can make decisions till you're blue in the face. Unless people carry them out your decisions won't be effective. Therefore the workforce is responsible. It's aware what it's doing, and it's aware that in the trade union movement there are people who would rather be out of work on principle than in work and doing anti-social and unacceptable things. There are people who've arrived at Greenham Common. There were a couple of fellows who travelled up from Wales which has traditionally suffered from unemployment for centuries. When they found out the nature of the work there they gave up the job.
I think that's completely utopian as a strategy. It's utopian to ask the mass of ordinary people who work in the armaments industry to give up their jobs and go on the dole. That's not a strategy that's going to stop the missiles in 1983.
But if they keep on earning their livelihood in this manner, we might stop Cruise missiles coming here but they're producing very different weapons which will ultimately be used. We will have achieved nothing.
I think the main focus should be on stopping Cruise coming. This is what we should concentrate on in the trade unions, The Cruise missiles aren't here. People in this country aren't manufacturing them, they're only building the silos. It's the building workers that are doing it. Now in UCATT they've already taken the decision not to work on the silos. They won't work on the bases. That's a moral decision by a trade union.
It's a political decision.
Yes, but it's a moral decision. They didn't do this because they thought the wage structure was bad or it was damaging to their health. They did it because of the type of work that it was implying.
But it's a decision to identify with the anti-missiles movement.
Political, yes. Moral, definitely. The fact that they will work on all sorts of other installations but they will not prepare for weapons of mass destruction any longer is a very definite step in the right direction.
But that's as a union, not as individuals.
Yes, But that's why you've got to then persuade individuals, and you say this can't be done, I say it must. You've got to make the individuals honour the decisions taken of that nature for their own well-being.
No. I think getting the unions to boycott particular aspects of the production of nuclear weapons as a political protest is fine. But I think going to individuals is different. It puts the onus on the individual and not the union collectively to act on a political issue.
I think you've got to work at all levels, On the decision-makers, on the unions and on the individuals within the industries.
But the question is what goals do you have when you do this work?
My goal is to survive. To let the planet continue wobbling on. I think that all those people who are trying to earn their livelihood, knowing that what they're producing might not kill them, but it's probably going to kill some poor sod on the other side of the planet, it is their responsibility, Because they're doing it, they are actively making it possible.
Well I think we should finish this particular point because we're not going to agree. As I said the onus should be on the unions to collectively fight for that.
I don't disagree with you. But if the unions have these policies and they can't persuade their members: a union isn't the leadership, it's the people within it. If you can't persuade the people within it you've got a problem.
Yes, but I don't think the problem on this question is the rank and file. The TUC leaders will support the leaders of the Labour Party who are completely in favour of breaking with conference decisions on unilateralism. The leaders of the trade unions are to the right of their members on this. They co-[illegible] with the Labour Party right wing to sabotage unilateralism.
Which brings me on to why you're standing as a candidate in the general election against the Labour Party?
I'm not standing as a candidate against the Labour Party. I'm standing against right wing elements within it. That's not standing against the Labour Party. It's standing for the Labour Party.
This is the most important general election since the war and the prospect of Labour losing means the possibility of implementing unilateral disarmament is put further back. If the peace movement and the women in the peace camps are standing against the Labour Party, or the right wing of the Labour Party, they will be accused of being opposed to the return of a Labour government.
Well, we've been misunderstood from the beginning. Nevertheless, the confusion will settle.
I see no advantage in returning a Labour government that doesn't have the will to bring into effect the policies that have been put before it. I watched what happened at the conference, our policies getting more than a two-thirds majority, There's our friend Hattersley saying: 'Well, it doesn't automatically mean it will go into the manifesto', And our friend Denis Healey saying: 'It depends what you mean by unilateralism'. There's a great deal of confusion amongst the Labour Party leaders.
There isn't any confusion in my mind at all. The conference made the decision that the Labour Party should pursue unilateral nuclear disarmament. The right wing elements in the leadership have got to be challenged and brought into line with the party.
Absolutely, but it's a question of how you do it. There are large numbers of people in the Labour Party who want to see unilateralism in the manifesto. Will those people support you standing against the right wing?
Well I hope so. We would effectively be supporting Labour Party policy. The right wing are actively fighting against it. Anybody who votes for Denis Healey or Jim Callaghan is not going to get them working for the policies of the party. They're going to be working 24 hours a day to defeat those policies.
But the point is there's a way of taking these people up within the party. You're in the Labour Party and there's been a process of attempting to make these people more accountable. There are ways of fighting both in the unions and the party to demand that policies are implemented.
Given the massive impact of the Greenham Common women on the missiles movement, if you're seen as going with the people that are standing against the Labour Party you'll set back this process of democratisation, not take it forward.
But I'm not going in with anyone against the Labour Party. We're standing against people who are challenging Labour Party policy and we're saying to them: 'If you change your policy, if you pursue unilateral nuclear disarmament, then we will withdraw from standing.'
Do you think your standing against them is going to aid the people that want to fight in the Labour Party or hinder them? I think the effect of your campaign, despite your intentions, will be for people like Healey and Callaghan to turn round and say: 'Well all these people that are unilateralists are complete nutters, they're opposed to the Labour Party, they're opposed to the labour movement, look what they did in the election.'
Look, all I can say to you is — and I'm a member of the Labour Party — do we want to see a Labour government returned in its present form where there is no control over the leadership at all, there is no way of making people do as they are requested to do.
And we see the same thing in the trade unions as well. Sid Weighell was a wonderful example of it — he was mandated to behave in one fashion, he chose to ignore that and there's nothing you can do about it.
Did you consider campaigning for Labour on the basis of unilateralism, as a separate campaign?
I did as an individual — by joining the Labour Party. That was my contribution to the party — I gave it all that I could, Having not got very far within the Labour Party I then fortunately became involved in Greenham Common, I think this campaign has got a very reasonable chance of putting a lot of pressure in the right places.
I think that to stand as we intend to under a title of 'Women for Life on Earth' makes that point very clearly,
We're not for all these arguments about whether one set of weapons has got an advantage over another. We're against all nuclear weapons and we want some of the policies that are being pursued and have been pursued by the Labour Party to be dropped, and we want unilateral nuclear disarmament. That's the first demand we have.
Well, there is something you can do.
Fine, but it takes a long time. Now, they're probably going to put Cruise missiles here in April. If you can convince me that you can change the Labour Party in time I won't stand. But until you can do that, I will. And if it means damaging the Labour Party and making it more the kind of party that I want to see, I'll damage it. But I don't think it's damaging it to challenge those who are damaging it, and this is the confusion.
But it seems to me that you could have a similar effect by campaigning for a Labour candidate on the basis of unilateralism and pointing out that this particular candidate didn't support it: that this was their contradiction because they weren't supporting party policy from the conference. You could have an independent campaign and you would be making your own political statement while supporting the left wing of the Labour Party.
Would you stand in a marginal Labour seat? I think the Greenham Common women would get a large vote.
Well then the Labour Party wouldn't have anything to fear. They've made some awful choices in the past — they've worked in coalitions with the Liberals who ran along with them until it was necessary and then turned on them. I don't think they'd fear anything like that from us because we want them to implement unilateral nuclear disarmament, That's why we're challenging those who don't want it.
We'll be very careful about which seats we choose. We're not going to choose seats, for instance, where there are unilateralist Labour candidates.
We're challenging the right wing, we're not challenging those who want the same as us at all. The main characters we're challenging are Healey, Callaghan, Shore, Hattersley and all these wonderful people who say the right things and do all the wrong things. I think we'll just put a sharper focus on what they say and what they actually do.
I think there are a hell of lot of people who really feel now that women have an important role to play, and I agree wholeheartedly with them, Politicians have had their way for a long, long while — they haven't come up and delivered the goods. It would look as if even at this late hour they're still looking for other avenues to explore before they get down to the real business.
Now we are identified very strongly as women at this time and that is our very first objective. To get a lot of women to state very clearly that they're opposed to these policies.
I think large numbers of women voted for Margaret Thatcher for no other reason than that she was a woman. That proves that there's an ever greater demand for women to be seen to be active in this field to encourage others to vote and take part in this debate.
There's a swing now among women in the opinion polls from Tory to Labour, so what you'll be doing by standing against Labour is ...
We're NOT standing against Labour! We'll be challenging all sorts of right wing candidates — in the Conservative Party and the SDP, We are going right across the political spectrum with this, and challenging people who think that nuclear weapons have a place in our lives. We're saying to them, 'you're wrong',
In Britain, there's always been traditionally a two-party system and now there's a massive economic and political crisis.
All the political commentators are beginning to say, 'what about the SPD, what about a third party, what about a Green party?'
The Communist Party for instance is advocating proportional representation and campaigning for a kind of 'popular front' government. It's beginning to campaign in CND to support the possibility of the SDP and the Liberals being won over to opposition to the missiles. Therefore there is a political context for these elections which is completely different from the usual two-party situation.
In other words, what you're saying is it's going to be even harder for the ordinary individual on the street who has to put their cross somewhere to understand what the hell they're being asked to do.
Well apart from that, if people stand against the Labour Party—
I do keep challenging you on this, and I'll continue to until you change your terminology. We are not standing against the Labour Party.
Well, if some women from the peace camp stand against certain right wing Labour Party MPs, that will be interpreted by a lot of ordinary people as an anti-working class stand.
Not by the time we have presented our position to them — but we haven't been able to do this yet. All the other parties are lining themselves up and saying what they're doing. I guarantee that when we say who we're standing against and why, it will not add to the confusion the electorate have to face — it will clarify the position for them very much.
What I'm trying to say is that I think the ruling class want to crush the Labour Party and I think it would be tragic if the women from Greenham Common were seen to be part of a process of trying to electorally annihilate the Labour Party.
Well, all I can say to you on that is that either you don't want to understand or you can't understand what I'm saying to you, because we have not got the slightest desire to injure the Labour Party, the section that wants to implement unilateral nuclear disarmament and actively want to assist it. That is very definite.
We are not out to injure the party but what we are very clear about is that we are not about to let the Labour Party injure us with its right wing extreme element that has a hell of a lot of power — its present leaders.
I don't see that they are of any benefit to me, to the Labour Party or to humanity in general.
Yes, I think what we disagree on is the effect of you standing.
Well, all I can say is that after the election you'll probably have to come back and say: 'I'm sorry, I didn't understand your point very well.'
Will you support people in the Labour Party who campaign for unilateralism even in the areas you're standing in?
Of course! We will be aiding and abetting them in every way we possibly can. We want to encourage them, but we want to make it easier for them to win over the right wing element that's trying to damage the cause.
But you're going to have to leave the Labour Party to do that?
Yes. It's ironic isn't it? To leave the Labour Party to pursue Labour Party policy. But I'm sure at a later date I can always rejoin the party — or maybe the Labour Party will join Women for Life on Earth!
I just wanted to ask you one last thing about what you said in Marxism Today. You said that the vast majority of women will always be childbearers and carers.
I think that's perfectly true regardless of how one looks at it. I think a lot of women will automatically always wish to care for children. I'm not saying therefore that we won't see an encouraging tendency amongst men to participate actively in this as well.
I don't think every woman in every country all over the world is suddenly going to change and want to take on all of the other roles and put childbearing and childcaring into a secondary category. I don't think you will ever see more men taking up that position than women.
But it's not a question of whether men care for children or women care for children. Surely feminists want to see society caring for children as a whole, the community caring for children, and therefore within that context the burden being shared. It's not a question of individual men, now, must change — although we do want individual men to change. But that's not our strategy. Our strategy is to say society should care for children,
The way the question was put to me and the way I answered it was, did I see this vast change. I see that all sorts of things are changing and that women will always be those most closely involved in the raising of children.
Then women will always be oppressed.
No. I don't think that's necessarily true at all. I think the changes in society actually recognise the value of women in that role and recognising that will stop the oppression.
So if women are paid a lot of money to stay at home and look after children they won't be oppressed any more?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's a lot of changes to be made and very simply, I can not see, in my limited vision that women will not be largely in a position of raising children, for the forseeable future.
What you're saying is that you don't expect socialism to happen very quickly. Presumably you don't believe that socialism would leave women in the same position as they are today?
Within the socialist structures that exist today at the moment unless you have evidence to suggest I'm lying, the women are largely looking after children.
That's because a lot of Eastern European countries actively promote the family in a very traditional way. But in certain countries where they've done a lot more, like in Cuba, the division is less sharp. But in general, you're right.
The reason is that there's not a strong women's movement, there's not democracy and therefore that has to be struggled for there too. But that doesn't mean to say that our goal is to leave women to care for children.
I'm not saying that's my goal either. When I'm asked do I see a vast shift, then my answer is, no I don't.
But you have to put a timescale on it. You have to say whether you think things will never change or you don't think they will change very fast.
I can't put a timescale on it, because I have no way of knowing what is happening in society. All I do know is that if we don't stop these bloody missiles coming here we won't have this problem! There won't have to be this tremendous searching about who's doing what, why and when because none of us will have any problems at all.