International Conscientious Objectors' Day

Tavistock Square, London

By Roberta Bacic

Today, Tuesday May 15th, we gather in Tavistock Square around this commemorative stone which was unveiled here, in 1994, to remember Conscientious Objectors from all over the world and in every age.

This day, the 15th of May, is considered International Conscientious Objectors' Day since 1982. It was first observed by European conscientious objectors to compulsory military service as a focus both: on campaigning for the right of objection to be established where it was lacking, and of support for objectors everywhere. There is no special reason that we know of why it is celebrated on this day, but that it was convenient at the time but, non the less it has continued ever since.

I'll try to go through a very short account on how the military came to be institutions of the state and how from there on also started to emerge a movement against it. I am taking pieces and bits from documents, publications and ideas that are part of our identity as War Resisters International. In the post primitive period, a new concept, a country with government, came up and the formation of the military became a 'necessity' for rulers to maintain their power and to look after the security of their country. By and large, service in the military became an obligation for citizenship. The just war theory was developed to add farther moral legitimacy to the state's army. In the meantime some enlightened people began to realise that there were other values that were much more important than the unquestioned 'duty to defend the motherland'. An antimilitarist approach was developed by many Christian and other religious sects. Many of their disciples and followers refused to take up arms and to obey orders that had anything to do with the killing of fellow human beings. As a consequence, believers in this philosophy suffered severe punishments, including sometimes death, for disobeying the state's orders to take up arms and join the armed forces. The state would not accept them to follow the dictate of their own conscience: not to kill.

The other side of the picture showed how destructive and inhuman the institution of war was. To increase the might and power of the rulers, more and more soldiers and supporters of this institution were needed. Parallel to this, the growing awareness of the destructivity of militarism, made the number of conscientious objectors (COs) to military service increase. As we mentioned before, this started from a religious conviction, but then it spread to all kinds of positions, be that religious, philosophical, political, moral or personal. As time went by, people of a younger generation became convinced that the command 'thou shall not kill' could come from within one's own self and from the conviction that killing fellow human beings was immoral, unfair and unjust.

Further on, anti-militarism became a force to be reckoned with and the number of COs increased considerably so that the governments had problems to recruit the number of conscripts and mercenaries they needed, they introduced coercive methods of recruitment. Further on the states introduced alternative-military service, as a possibility to deal with individuals who refuse to service in the military but which would also neutralise the strength of the CO movement as a whole. We should also be aware that the State has projected the image of COs as persons who avoid responsibilities, and as draft dodgers and does not recognise the deeper reasons that move them.

The concept and practice of conscientious objection to military service has challenged the authority of the State over the individual and his/her personal freedom to choose what is thought to be the right, as well as his/her responsibility in front of the rest of society. Cutting out the freedom of the individual, the State dwarfs the growth of the individual, hence weakens society as a whole, which is what militarism ultimately does. Conscientious objectors to military service are therefore important not just because they stand for the individual's right not to use force and kill his fellow human being, but also because they challenge the legitimacy of state violence and the right of the state to call on its citizens to act immorally.

War Resisters' International is a network of anti -militaristic groups spread all over the world. Each of its members has signed the statement: war is a crime against humanity. It is true that the mere refusal to military service is not enough to bring about the social change that is needed to achieve a fair society, ultimate goal of WRI and other groups that struggle for social justice. In the words of Devi Prasad, when writing his foreword for our publication Refusing to Bear Arms, we can find the common goal we are here for: 'most creative social and political forces indicate the fact that militarism is the greatest enemy of humanity and of universal unity.'

I am asked to give these key words to set the topic of conscientious objection in context as well as to refer to the history of the movement. It is difficult to decide what to include and what to leave out when doing it here, in so few minutes and in such a way that invites the passer by to join us and grasp what we are doing here in the street. I would like just to add a few questions to think about now and in our own groups:

What strategies can we follow so as to keep our principles in the public discourse as a possible alternative and stop being constricted to our marginal place that only allows us to survive?
Are we aware of the difference it means to be a CO in Europe or in places like Latin America or Africa where the consequences can be much more disastrous for the individual?
What can COs do to challenge militarism once conscription is not obligatory?
How do we deal with the fact that militarism is part of globalisation and is reaching the point of 'Star Wars'?
What are our challenges and chances to extend our movement in a society where even the UN in its approach to 'help' where conflicts and wars are happening intervenes with a structure similar to the military?
How do we approach the concept of military in a world where they are inserted in the social body of society and participate in 'humanitarian tasks'?
What are the possibilities of influencing change, if any?

Supporting war resisters in Angola

by Andreas Speck

Every year War Resisters' International tries to highlight the situation of conscientious objectors in one country. We do this to raise awareness for a struggle that doesn't get the public attention it deserves. While war criminals - be they presidents of their countries or just warlords - receive massive attention by the media and by the militarists who form our governments, deserters, draft evaders and conscientious objectors, peace activists working at the grassroots, receive no to little attention. But we as War Resisters' believe that peace has to be built from the grassroots - by those who refuse to kill - and cannot be achieved by those benefiting from waging wars - or supplying the weapons needed to fight wars.

Last year we focused on the situation in Turkey. At the same time we commemorated here, Turkish antimilitarists publicly declared their conscientious objection during an antimilitarist festival in Istanbul, supported by an international delegation organised by WRI.

This year we are focussing on the situation in Angola, a country at war for more than 35 years now. A war, far away from Europe, and far away from places where we go to enjoy our holidays. And so why should we bother? Why bother, that more than 3.5 million people have been displaced as a result of this war, almost 40% of Angola's population? Why bother about a war, that left more than half a million people dead; why bother about a war that is internationally recognised as the bloodiest and most sophisticated of all African wars? Why bother, business is going well, we - the civilized Western countries, profit from oil deals, diamond trade and - of course - the bloody business of trading weapons. Why bother, when Angolan refugees knock at our borders, asking for asylum - we can just send them back to this war, were the life of a human being doesn't count anyway.

It is obvious that in such a country there is no right to conscientious objection. Not only the government forces use some sort of conscription, the rebel forces of UNITA also fill their ranks by means of forced recruitment. How does this work? Quite easily, and very non-bureaucratic: either government forces or UNITA just raid a quarter of a city - of course not the wealthy areas, but the suburbs and shantytowns - or villages, and "recruit" all men suitable for fighting, no matter if they are just 14 years old or 35. This "simple" system of conscription doesn't provide any regulation for an alternative service on grounds of conscientious objection; those who refuse are either shot on the spot, send to dangerous war zones without training, or put into prison for years, which often includes being beaten. "Conscientious objection" under these circumstances means, to hide somewhere when the military raids your quarter or village, to flee into the bush, to flee abroad.

Draft evasion or desertion here sends an important political message to the military leaders: we don't want to fight your war, we don't want to kill fellow human beings in order to support your power play, to secure your profits from diamond trade or oil business. After 35 years of war we want to live in peace!

A few month's ago, in January this year, Holden Roberto, veteran of the Angolan armed liberation struggle for independence, called on the soldiers of all armed forces in Angola to dispose of their weapons, to finally end this war, to "dialogue and discuss all our problems, differences and grievances, as brothers, sisters and children of this country". But yesterdays Guardian again reported the killing of 100 people and the captivation of 60 children - boys and girls - by UNITA forces; it could have been government forces as well.

War Resisters' International tries to support the small but active peace groups in Angola. In July this year we will visit these groups in Angola to discuss further cooperation and practical support to deserters and peace activists.

Through our Conscientious Objection and Conscription Documentation Project we try o support draft evaders and deserters from Angola seeking asylum in our rich and safe countries - although with little success. Those who always talk about peace and taking responsibility from their comfortable offices in Downing Street, in the White House or the chancellors office in Berlin refuse to give shelter to those from the war torn country of Angola, who refused to participate in this war and took responsibility to take part in building peace. Refusing to kill doesn't give you the right to asylum in our so-called liberal democracy.

We therefore call on you to support us in our struggle for the right of asylum on grounds of desertion or conscientious objection. We call on you to support asylum seekers and illegalised refugees who fled from participating in a war. Not these illegal refugees are criminal, but the EU and British authorities who don't hesitate to send them back, while at the same time doing bloody deals with the Angolan government or UNITA.

We strongly believe that it is us as war resisters who have to support each other worldwide in order to achieve peace. Refusing to bear arms is a first and important step.