wri-irg.org
War Resisters' International
Donate to WRI
WRI homepage > Publications > The Broken Rifle > No.54, March 2002
This issue of the Broken Rifle is based on the report of our seminar held in Oxford in July 2000; So, 'Better late than never!'- a popular expression in my country. Nontheless the subject matter is as relevant as ever now that there are all these wars. Yet again we, an anti-militaristic group, have to decide how to deal with the everlasting war machine. Every member of our network has signed the statement, ´war is a crime against humanity'- which means we must oppose and resist it. The title of the Seminar was From Kosov@ to Seattle: what role for nonviolent action? Reading the report you will note the importance of the issues raised and the relevance of the questions posed; and you will be aware of the need to keep busy and active.
The venue, Hill End, set the tone of the meeting. It could not have taken place in a more typical, rural summer British landscape and we were able to wander about in the fields during breaks. Some people pitched tents and thoroughly enjoyed themselves. It was interesting that quite a significant group of young people, not in the movement, were keen to take part, as well as older people who had no connections with WRI in the past. Networking was a major activity; and we even had time to socialise after the sessions in the evenings.
This introduction is not an account of the discussion - this will come later. You will soon come to that. I should like to say a big thank you to Mika Minio-Paluello, an anthropology student I met in Cambridge when I gave a talk on the struggle against impunity in Chile. He kindly offered to read reports, listen to tapes for hours on end, struggle with flip-board reports of sessions he had not attended and produce this report. Sophie Reynolds and John Courtneidge helped to edit it, and finally Jan Melichar did the layout. Many thanks to all of them. It's finally done.
Roberta BacicIn discussion of the role and future of nonviolent action around the world, the seminar dealt with many of the concepts and activities central to WRI.
With the beginning of a new century and the UN Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence, it seemed apt to reflect on the events and experiences of the last years of the 20th century.
1999 in particular will be remembered as the year that NATO declared war against Yugoslavia and began a bombing campaign that resulted in the destruction of both civilian and military infrastructure. Lauded by politicians and media as a successful "humanitarian intervention", the war set new precedents in the interpretation of international law, in the control of the media, and in the political and operational policies of NATO itself. The long-term work of anti-militarists and peace projects in the region, the solidarity actions of radical antiwar activists further afield, and the alternative perspectives they collectively provide, were largely ignored.
1999 would also be remembered as the year in which the first so-called "All-African War" raged in Central Africa. Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola and others all sent troops to support either the Congolese government or the rebels in the east of the country, with many other countries indirectly involved. The militarisation of an entire continent appeared to destroy all hope of creating a better future, although indigenous African nonviolent resistance mechanisms did in some cases prove effective.
Finally, 1999 also saw the massive growth of a new movement of activists taking on the symbols of global capitalism and militarism in Seattle and around the globe.
This mass action is part of a growing global resistance to rampant capitalist ideology and its consequences. This radical growth in mass action has extended to campaigns against genetically modified organisms, for animal and human rights, social justice and the cancellation of Third World debt. Does the dramatic scale and inclusiveness of these actions herald a new era of mass nonviolent activity by concerned citizens?
These and other issues were discussed in the seminar, which aimed to provide an opportunity for activists to reflect together on the potential of nonviolent action to challenge current political realities and bring about social change. While there were not expected to be any specific conclusions, it was hoped that new insights would be reached into the practice and theory of nonviolent action, with identification of potentially effective strategies for future action. WRI's definition of nonviolent action is "a form of action that affirms life, speaks out against oppressions and acknowledges the value of each person." But this is both abstract and ambiguous. What does this mean in practice?
As always, the seminar provoked as many questions and ambiguities as straightforward answers.
Questions arising included:
How can we reconcile the desire for a nonviolent revolution with the here and now -- the present conditions of violence, but no revolution?
Several speakers were unhappy with the use of the term "non-war" in the title of this session. While situations in Israel, Yugoslavia (pre-'99) and Northern Ireland were neither full-scale war nor peace, speakers felt that the term "non-war" obscured the long-term, low-intensity nature of these conflicts
Howard Clark, the author of "Civil Resistance in Kosovo", reported on nonviolent action in pre-NATO war Kosovo. Since the early 1990s, the Albanian community, having no military means to resist the Yugoslav army, took up nonviolence as a resistance strategy. However, they did not remain passive. There was an active restraint on responses to provocation, as well as attempts to reform Albanian traditions felt to be detrimental to the community, such as the blood feud, which had led to continuous rivalry and fighting between families.
Women were given a new place in society, accompanied by increased recognition of their rights.
However, there were weaknesses in the 1990s Kosovan nonviolence movement: elitist styles of leadership, refusals to engage in dialogue, stereotyping of others & ethnic discipline, as well as a lack of selforganisation & initiatives from below.
Similarly to the Israeli situation, the great weakness of the Kosovan nonviolence movement lay in its people being seen as undesirable by the Yugoslav regime. The most powerful mechanisms of nonviolent resistance, non-co-operation and mass withdrawal, were useless, as the survival of the regime was not dependent on them.
Rather, both the Israeli and Yugoslav regimes would have deemed it a success if the Palestinians and Albanians had packed up and left.
WRI proposed and established a nonviolence peace team in Kosovo in the early 1990s. Rather than looking at mass intervention, it concentrated on low-key, small-scale, long-term activities. However, at a time when it is not safe to speak Serbian on the streets of Pristina, it must be asked what achievements we can show for this. Should we recognise that "our" grassroots actions are not on and/or cannot be on a scale to stop war and that we have to engage with states or interstate agencies, such as the OSCE or the UN?
How do we deal with the fact that there will always be more people in a population willing to support nonviolent tactics than those subscribing to a "full" nonviolent ideology ?
Uri Davis from the Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Israel presented a successful piece of direct action in which the Israeli legal system had been utilised to establish the first ever Arab home in a Jewish settlement.
While there was disagreement over whether to define Israel as an apartheid state or not, it was generally accepted that the Israeli state did continue formalised and institutionalised discrimination. However, similar to apartheid South Africa, Israel was at pains to present itself as a functioning, non-arbitrary liberal democracy. Like SA apartheid, this meant that several arenas for change are open and justified, including an independent judiciary tied to the constitution.
Israel is constitutionally defined as both a "Jewish" and a "democratic" state, which can and does lead to tensions between the two. However, both of these values of the state allowed a challenge to be brought to the Supreme Court on whether the state was allowed to distinguish people by their religion or nationality: in particular in the matter of allocating land. This resulted in the court deciding that the Israeli state was prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion and nationality. This decision enabled the introduction of the first ever Arab home into an all-Jewish settlement. However, it will take a long time before this ruling (of non-discrimination) is implemented fully and thoroughly.
This case shows that it is possible to take direct action using legal means, to rely on precisely those courts and existing structures that frequently appear to be part of the enemy. Other groups have recently used a similar mixture of subversive processes and employing legal means, notably the ploughshares movement trying to implement international law.
Clem McCartney used Northern Ireland to elaborate on the problems of ambiguous situations.
The conflict in Northern Ireland is frequently oversimplified and presented as a black and white affair, particularly by the media. There is a tendency to divide the many disparate parties and groups with different interests, aims and methods into simple friend-enemy, oppressor-oppressed categories.
There is widespread misuse of language by many groups, evoking fair and progressive ideas even when those being presented are far from fair and progressive. Peace as a goal is difficult -- everybody in Northern Ireland supports peace -- their own peace.
Despite the Good Friday Agreement, there is no common vision of peace. While the simplistic call to rally around "peace" can be good for mobilising people, it masks and avoids essential differences that must eventually be faced. As a result, pacifist organisations in Northern Ireland have had little impact.
Problems of working in ambivalent situations include:
It was felt that it would be more productive to state the ambiguities openly. This could then form the ground on which movement towards change could occur. Conflict situations are neither simple nor static. The complex circumstances are in perpetual flux, with roles and statements continually taking on new meaning. As one participant put it, "as neutral peacemakers, we must continually re-define our neutrality to prevent misrepresentation".
It is important to:
(Investigate imaginative, original direct action such as having tea on the street in the face of a Loyalist march.
Taking part in activity against violence is particularly difficult when it is in the face of heavy, often arbitrary and unregulated, violence, as is the case during military action.
Instead of receiving the respect they deserve, nonviolent activists are frequently attacked by both sides. This is a very isolating and lonely experience, especially in emotive situations, where peace activists or conscientious objectors are denounced as traitors to their own people. The concept of citizenship as tied to military service is prevalent throughout the world, even in those countries that have long abolished compulsory service.
Is there any value in having a nonviolent presence in war regions, or is it a waste of time and energy and maybe even counterproductive ?
Should we rush in at the first sign of conflict, or is it more productive to wait for the conflict to blow over?
While it was generally accepted that nonviolent action during military action is subject to severe constraints and "success" (which remained undefined) was far from assured, the overriding consensus was that a nonviolent presence can be of great value. Such activities could include:
The Kivu provinces of the Congo, as many other African regions, have a long tradition of nonviolent resistance. In Kivu, the more recent manifestations of this have been first anti-colonial and then anti-Mobutu. In the past few years, nonviolent tactics have been used to resist oppression by rebels, in particular against the Rwandan and Ugandan occupation. As peace campaigners have been persecuted, beaten and even killed, internal radio and the churches have called for an end to the violence. Attempts by the occupying to silence this nonviolent opposition have included exiling the Archbishop of Bukavu to a small inaccessible village in the north of the province. Mass nonviolent tactics have included "dead cities"
Igor Seke reported on Women in Black's experiences in Former Yugoslavia. The 1980s had seen a lot of verbal violence in Yugoslavia, but there were still hopes that it would not become physical. Women in Black was founded in 1991 as a nonviolent response to the outbreak of war. In opposing the war, Women in Black were labelled ´traitors' to the ideal of the Serbian nation. People involved in the anti-war campaign were persecuted particularly heavily by Milosovic. The counterproductive effects of a violent response to military action were shown by the NATO war over Kosovo.
Besides the obvious negative results of military action, the NATO attacks strengthened Milosovic' position, legitimising further attacks on Albanians and fanning nationalist sentiment.
The most obvious nonviolent resistance to war is conscientious objection (CO). While Yugoslavia did recognise the right to alternative service, this right was not extended to soldiers. Those that refused to fight were attacked in the media and labelled traitors, while facing persecution by the state.
Many thousands deserted during the NATO bombing after fliers were dropped from planes. However, NATO cynically used them for tactical purposes, member states offering almost no support to COs who fled Yugoslavia. As it is, NATO countries regularly don't grant asylum to COs from countries where they face both prosecution and persecution, including Iraq.
Despite the repression, COs organised a conference in Serbia on conscientious objection, establishing a network for those who had gone AWOL, with links to Bosnian and Croatian groups. They have also set up a ´Safe House Project' in Budapest, for those COs who have managed to get out and don't want to live in Hungarian refugee camps. Some German cities have also been persuaded to invite Serbian COs to come and live there.
CO has a central role in the nonviolent movement within war-zones. This is especially so in countries where the regimes do not recognise the right to abstain from war and violence. Taking part in military action is still widely seen as a requisite for gaining citizenship rights; those refusing are thus not only "cowards" and "traitors" but also "non-citizens".
The presentation on Chechnya discussed problems and possibilities of nonviolent action coming from outside the conflict zone. Taking a nonviolent perspective should help us to support refugees. Most aid does not reach civilian refugees, as large portions are confiscated by soldiers as tolls. Aid meant to alleviate the suffering of the victims of war can inadvertently support the continuation of the conflict. It can also be difficult to differentiate between refugees and soldiers. Where guerrilla tactics are used, many are civilians by day, soldiers at night. Do we support these groups? How do we interact with them to alleviate suffering without supporting violent resistance?
The Chechen problem threw up some novel problems and proposals, including:
Of course, relevant nonviolent actions during military action need not only take place in the war-zone: there can also be solidarity actions taking place thousands of miles away.
Solidarity campaigns are frequently taken for granted, but we rarely ask ourselves some vital questions:
This last is especially important when our message runs counter to the dominant theme presented in the mainstream media. For example due to the definition of the situation, the anti-sanctions campaign is frequently perceived and presented as supporting Saddam Hussein, while those who were anti-NATO bombing of Yugoslavia were seen as Milosovic supporters, rather than as campaigning in solidarity with the victims. Solidarity campaigns face the constant problem of the media sensationalising and over-simplifying what are very ambiguous situations, while ignoring the grinding hardship of the victims. It is very easy to believe that sanctions are needed to contain Hussein and that all Serbs are murderers and racists. It is far harder to accept that our countries' policies are not only not helping, but further maybe making the situation significantly worse.
Sian Jones reported on her experiences with solidarity actions, including bringing aid to a women's group in Bosnia. This had resulted in a fusion of feminist, anti-militarist & anti-war perspectives. They had attempted to respond to the needs and requests of women in the region. But these actions were far from successful or effective. It was necessary to examine whether the peace movement's involvement in humanitarian aid & nonviolent conflict resolution was merely due to a lack of imagination? Did it achieve anything against war and militarism? Or did such actions merely perpetuate the conflicts? Should the peace movement keep to what it is best at -- cutting fences and lying in front of tanks?!
Many Solidarity actions take place with little or no dialogue with those with who we are in solidarity. As a result, many campaigns have zero effect on the lives of the victims. Sian established the basis for a true solidarity action to be responding to needs in a collaborative manner.
Necessary components of an effective solidarity campaign are:
While the impact of campaigns is rarely immediate or tangible, one should try to aim for clear outcomes.
The most successful nonviolent actions during the Bosnia conflict were the result of many thousands of women standing up for their rights, ensuring that sexual violence was recognised as a serious matter and given priority for the first time. This was a result of a rare degree of empathy.
Probably the most powerful and effective solidarity action would be local direct action against militarism. Eg. A mass blockade of military bases, particularly RAF Fairwood, could have incapacitated the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia far more effectively than the many demonstrations and marches that went past Parliament and the Embassies.
Some say that there is no need for nonviolent activism in post-conflict situations, as the primary target is gone. Sadly however, the end of a conflict does not necessarily bring an end to all other problems.
Militarism, injustice and ethnic tensions can persist long after the guns have been laid to rest. Nonviolent action is necessary precisely to stop a renewed conflict breaking out again. But how do we respond to the drop in peace activism in post-repressive situations ?
Vesna Terselic from Croatia examined the causes of this drop.
By facing these problems, we can find new opportunities into which to channel our energies. The drop in peace activism can be counteracted through a new constituency of activists, e.g. families of disappeared, excombatants. It could also be time to look at previously submerged issues, such as the human rights of soldiers.
Post-conflict Croatia presented an unusual opportunity, in that the military suddenly became very open. There was general acceptance that activists were needed to work alongside the government on issues of militarism and conflict resolution.
Other opportunities to address peace issues that have not yet been taken in Croatia include:
Activists have a tendency to jump in with their opinions on what the important issues are.
Nicole Drouilly from Chile reported on the need for justice in post-conflict situations. We must strive for justice for all victims of oppression -- sometimes this is more important than peace. Without justice the victims cannot experience closure and are forced to relive the past again and again. Peace without justice can lead to repression of the past, until the injustice emerges again having festered into revenge, with the force of history behind it. The struggle for justice must have roots in the social fabric.
The international community has an obligation to uphold the enforcement of justice and to try criminals. Should all war criminals be prosecuted centrally (e.g. in The Hague), or should a more peripatetic system be implemented? While the first would probably be better at achieving "objective" justice, it might be too distant from the victims to be of any consequence. The latter could be more healing, as criminals could be judged by their peers according to local practices. However, this might not always be feasible, especially where support for the criminal is still strong or where witnesses are afraid to testify. WRI must consider which networks and resources could be available (particularly legal fields) to the relatives of the disappeared and others seeking justice.
Militarism has been the traditional target for the peace movement's nonviolent action. But keeping in mind the issues discussed in WRI's 1999 Seminar, "The Changing Face of the Military", we must remain vigilant of changes. The dictionary definition of militarism includes references to:
India adheres to all three of these definitions as it enters a heavy militarisation process, including atomic bomb blasts.
Even ignoring the basic immorality of militarism, India is simply not in a position to cope with such an economic burden. More than half the population is functionally illiterate, and 50% do not know where their daily meal is going to come from. Militarisation is not a small matter, as it brings with it crucial economic consequences. If you do not have money to educate or feed people, how can you buy guns?
Diptendu Mukherji from Swadhina accepted that conflict is human -- but finding a solution through armed intervention is not. This is especially the case in India, where the "enemies" are India's brothers and sisters in Pakistan.
Despite this, there is no shortage of people willing to enrol in the Indian army. The interest is the result of the sentimental blackmailing of people using words such as "motherland" and "nation". This has a particularly strong influence on the uneducated.
They are also vulnerable to the attraction of the military as guaranteeing a square meal. Despite being one of the lowest paid, a job in the military is still a job. Many uneducated do not realise the horror and long-term effects of atomic bombs, perceiving them as fun crackers at a festival. Ignorance is so widespread, that it is difficult to even make a dent. It is not only the poor, but also the supposed elite that demonstrate such ignorance of the consequences of nuclear weapons. Warnings are met with the constant refrain, "everything for our security -- to protect ourselves". What is the meaning of this security? Safeguarding what? The poverty? The illiteracy?
For every 100 rupees spent in India, 26 rupees are spent paying back loans, and 14 rupees go to direct militarisation. The 26 rupees spent paying back loans are dollars, which indirectly go towards militarisation as well. Kickbacks are given to top Indian politicians, which end up in Swiss bank accounts.
War is an attempt to exert power over others. Globalisation shows the same characteristics of overpowering, but in the economic sphere. Only a tiny minority of Indians can afford foreign consumer goods as the gulf between rich and poor is becoming ever wider.
Questions we must ask ourselves include:
Grassroots collective action against oppression and injustice. Targeting passive victims, who have always had decisions thrust upon them. We must improve people's analytical power in identifying issues that affect their lives.
Encourage the conscious decision to uphold nonviolence in every sphere of life, against militarism in any form, be it political, social or economic, within the family or without. Swadhina is trying to do this in small village situations -- these are the "small islands of hope".
The most obvious direct action to take against militarism is to refuse to fight, i.e. conscientious objection (CO). Increasing numbers of countries, especially in Europe, have abolished compulsory military service, channelling their energy at other targets. However, in many countries, forced conscription is still the norm, with those refusing facing heavy penalties. IAMI, an antimilitarist group in Istanbul, have found, that in combating militarism through CO, they have to fight against a general mindset unwilling to accept nonviolence.
IAMI have recently had several successes in different arenas. They organised a festival for the three new COs in Turkey. This was in collaboration with CO, war resistor and anarchist groups, as well as the Party of Freedom and Solidarity. The three COs had not yet heard news of a trial. However, three other member of IAMI were charged and were being prosecuted for violating the infamous paragraph 155. This outlaws "alienating people from military service" -- precisely what pacifists want to achieve. The accused chose not to make a formal defence, arguing that civilians cannot be judged in a military court.
For the first time ever, there was a public panel on a new armaments project of the Turkish armed forces. This was a great step forward, as armaments projects were never discussed in Turkey, even amongst politicians. Usually, information was gained from sources outside Turkey, such as the Netherlands. Further, the self-imposed media embargo on anti-militarist issues was broken by the two main leftist newspapers.
There was also a very successful public declaration by the Turkish generals, in which they used the term "conscientious objection" for the first time ever. Of course, the generals wrote, "there is no concept of ´conscientious objection' in Turkey. However, in attempting to negate it, the generals were inadvertently admitting the existence of the concept.
The Izmir CO group (ISKD) wanted to focus on lobbying the EU to bring up CO in the negotiations on Turkey's possible membership of the EU. CO is one of the criteria set in the Copenhagen contract, so there are possibilities for change. However, on their own they are too small, requiring international support.
Lobbying alone is useless if there is no action or discussion within the country -- this was now the responsibility of IAMI. Izmir wanted to put nonviolence on the political agenda, but there are problems with the term nonviolence -- it is disliked in Turkey, most are not interested in such methods. Instead, they came up with the idea of organising a congress titled "New social movements -- their practice and ideology", possibly linked to a WRI council in Turkey. (This WRI Seminar happened September 2001 titled "Peace and the Women's movement in Turkey: practice and ideology")
As one of the main goals of the Turkish CO movement is legal recognition of the status of CO, it was suggested that we could highlight the need for a rechannelling of resources from the military to the prevention of and response to natural disasters.
Earthquakes in particular probably constitute a greater threat to Turkey than any military action. Other suggestions for alternative service to obligatory military service could include international nonviolent conflict -intervention initiatives. However, it was felt that it might be wiser to avoid suggesting an alternative, Howard Clark citing the Spanish conscientious objectors as a successful campaign that avoided the issue of alternative service.
There was also discussion on whether it would be possible to integrate the CO and anti-militarism campaign with a programme for a nonviolent solution to the Kurdish conflict and to their right of self-determination. Were there solutions compatible to our nonviolence principles? Could they also link in to the campaign against the Ilisu dam, the building of which would exacerbate the conflict with the Kurds?
Were there possibilities of building transnational support for the pacifist movement in Turkey? What role could the considerable Turkish diaspora play in this movement?
Ideas included nonviolent protest actions at Turkish embassies, links to the campaign against the enormous arms trade with Turkey and the Ilisu dam, solidarity work for prospective Turkish CO refugees and fundraising initiatives (the lack of funds is a limiting factor determining how many prospective COs the movement can support).
When "combating" (in a nonviolent way) militarism, we need to target the relevant companies as well as governments. With increasing privatisation and public-privatepartnerships, private companies are making increasing profits out of "public services". Whether it is a "service" to the public to provide weapons of mass destruction or not, this shift in policy in favour of private sector involvement can be seen in the development, production, maintenance & decommissioning of British nuclear weapons. Since 1993, British nuclear weapons production has been under ´goco' operation (government-owned, contractor-operated). While the state owns all the physical sites of production, private companies manage all day-to-day functions of Trident production & maintenance, including decommissioning. The current 10-year deal is worth £2.2 billion. The consortium currently managing atomic weapons facilities is made up of three companies, British Nuclear Fuels plc (100% govt owned), Lockheed -Martin and Circo (involved with private railways, prisons and prisoner transfer schemes).
The increasing transnational interests of these corporations and interweaving of the policy of governments and companies should give activists on both sides of the Atlantic plenty of scope to attack this industry and its ideology.
We can make the transnational nature of these corporations our strength by taking collective global action against them. We must also investigate possible link-ups with campaigns targeting these companies on other grounds. E.g. links to anti-privateprison, (and anti-prison), campaigns in respect to Circo. We could also make use of the widening of our links that link ups with activists working to dismantle the ideological basis of such policies on a range of grounds would afford.
With protests at Seattle, Prague and Genoa, a diverse movement campaigning for global justice had received more and more media coverage. A lot of this has been negative, concentrating on violent riots at these summits rather than the issues. The words "globalisation" and "anti-globalisation" tend to be bandied about, with lots of confusion about their actual meaning. We cannot win an argument if we do not even understand the terms we are using. Strictly speaking, globalisation is a process by which the world becomes linked closer and closer together, largely through improvements in infrastructure and transport. Many aspects of globalisation are good -- few activists would deny the benefits of the Internet, of exchanging cultural information and practices (and food!). Without globalisation, WRI could not have hosted a seminar such as this, with participants from around the world. Neither are the effects of globalisation that new -- they are just more "in your face" than previously.
The problem is corporate or elite globalisation, that is, the process by which large companies are gaining increasing power due to their transnational nature. Elite globalisation is also that process which keeps the developing world poor for the benefit and enrichment of the West. Corporate globalisation is furthered through institutions such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank, NATO and the UN, bodies that are to large extent agencies of the US.
Susan George described corporate globalisation as having three long-term effects:
Stephen Staples described the emergence of the "military-corporate complex". Eisenhower had warned American citizens to beware the growing influence & power of the military industrial complex. The collusion between military and defence contractors would subvert democracy. The end of the Cold War and advent of globalisation has transformed this into the "military-corporate complex".
The wealth and power of some companies exceed those of many nation-states; their interests extend across many borders. Protection of the war industry is written into the WTO. Social and environmental policies are constantly under attack, while the WTO protects militarism is protected through the "Security Exemption". This allows governments to define their own security, which cannot be challenged before the WTO's Disputes or Appeals Panel.
The power and influence of arms companies can be seen in the key role Lockheed-Martin played in the deterioration of US-Russian relations. Lockheed-Martin empowered cold warriors in Congress to increase the military budget by $17 billion more than the Pentagon had asked for. The Bush Snr administration had promised not to enlarge NATO to the East if Russia (Gorbachev) did not oppose the reunification of Germany. The US Committee to Expand NATO lobbied furiously (and successfully) for US to disregard that promise -- the vice-president of Lockheed-Martin chaired the committee.
What must we do?
1) The peace movement must educate itself on the relationship between militarism and globalisation and between inter- and intranational finance.
Our writers and researchers need to investigate the military-corporate complex.
2) We cannot treat the arms industry & military spending as separate issues. We must recognise that the international corporate agenda is a form of warfare against peace, human rights and democracy.
3) We need to develop our own positive alternative to economic globalisation & the WTO.
In building an intelligent argument against elite globalisation, we must beware oversimplifications and superficial statements. For example, our side of the discussion around agribusiness is frequently limited to "GMO's are bad, they're not natural".
Naïve arguments play into the hands of our opponents.
In fact, food security is a far more complex issue, covering
The growth in agribusiness has echoed the fundamental global dynamic, i.e. a concentration of power in openly unaccountable and undemocratic TNCs (transnational corporations). This has further exacerbated the "gulf between the majority at the receiving end of this drive for profit and those riding the corporate juggernaut."
However, the global nature of this problem has also played to our advantage uniting groups as diverse as Lord Melchet and GM activists in Britain pulling up crops, grassroots organisations in Africa resisting attempts to patent their (genetic) heritage and Indian farmers standing up to Monsanto, refusing to let their whole production process be taken over.
As a result, we have seen some successes:
Now the corporations are launching their next offensive. In India, agribusinesses are creating rice with added Vitamin A -- when what the farmers really need is Vitamin L and Vitamin M -- Land and Money.
The phenomena of mass protests at international summits have led to these summits becoming ever greater media events. While this does lead to higher scrutiny of our governments' actions, most of the media attention focuses on the photogenic actions of the demonstrators. However, we must always remain aware of the role of the media in misinformation and disinformation. It is therefore absolutely vital that we get both the underlying issues and the positive nature of our actions across to the wider public. While a lot of effort is put into preparing these mass actions, there is very little reflection on how things went. This is largely because of the peripatetic nature of these summits, where one team will prepare a one-off counter-summit or demonstration. However, we must examine how things have gone to have any chance of improving actions and flushing out problems.
Joanne Sheehan presented some reflections on the role Seattle and Washington have played.
For the Seattle demonstrations there were 50,000 participants: 40,000 were labour union members and 10,000 from various environmental and economic justice backgrounds.
Organising began one whole year in advance. 5000 took part in nonviolence training beforehand, with the explicit aim of shutting down the summit. Despite discussing this beforehand with the police, they were fairly successful at blocking the entrances, as police had not taken the demonstrators seriously.
While no one person knew all the relevant issues being presented that day, most of the people were generally very well informed.
Some empowering dialogue occurred between demonstrators and delegates trying to get in to the summit.
Naomi Klein stated that what emerged on the streets of Seattle and Washington was "an activist model that mirrored the organic decentralised pathways of the internet".
However it is very dangerous to pretend that the organising of these actions happened on the streets inspired by the internet, rather than recognising the vast amount of planning and organising that had gone into making them so successful (and mostly nonviolent).
The foundation of this "new way of working" has been going on for 25 years. A key aspect was the use of Affinity Groups -- the campaign against Seabrook nuclear power station developed the concept of the affinity group, inspired by Biehl, Spanish anarchist cells and women's consciousness groups.
WRL (War Resistors League) in the States played a key role in taking this successful model to the nuclear weapons movement, to the Central Americas movement and beyond. It, along with other creative influences, was a clear foundation and inspiration for the nonviolence activism at Seattle, as well as other creative influences.
Seattle has become a model for the globalisation movement. This is a new era of activism raising new discussion on nonviolence.
We must analyse successes and failures and build on them. We must not lose sight of where power lay in Seattle, and gain an understanding of the power of nonviolence in that action. People came home wanting more nonviolence training.
Questions for groups acting in the global arena and in coalitions:
We must urgently address the overlap and parallels of language used to describe nonviolent and violent action, such as "guerrilla" and "eco-warrior". While these might sound sexy, in most people's minds it places us on the same plane as violent activists. Media bias means that people on the street think that violence was widespread even if it was minimal or didn't even occur. Heavy reactions by police are presented and perceived as a response to violence -- even if there was no violence. Mass media also plays a role in creating a bad atmosphere, an expectance of violence.
What should our response be to violence within the movement? Is 98% nonviolence enough? Can one impose nonviolence? Is there a feasible form of "peace police"? It is very difficult to restrain violent activists with nonviolence. It was attempted in Seattle (in the form of peace police) and caused "all sorts of disquiet".
In response to the planned building of a dam widespread opposition was generated. University teachers who proposed alternatives supported the villagers. But few people got involved, as the dam did not threaten many villages. Trained people in nonviolent action resisted the machines and were successful in stopping them. However many people think nonviolent action is too radical. (in a negative sense). We need to make clear that it is less radical than violent action. Many people use nonviolent action without realising it. We need to enable people to recognise the whole range of nonviolent action.
It was reported that there had been no grass roots training in UK (for MayDay or J18) as there was in Seattle and Washington.
Often people come to nonviolence after years of opinion forming. How do we nurture this interest and motivation in two days training for a Seattle type demonstration? We need to build nonviolence training into campaigns early on, rather than last minute before a big action. WRL in USA is now organising regular training.
Engaging and fostering links with people is one of the most important aspects of nonviolent action. We are frequently perceived as engaging solely in confrontational actions with either negative or utopian demands. In speaking up against the status quo, we threaten the vested interests of the media, and as a result usually receive a bad press. We must therefore try our hardest to link directly with all the people around us, as well as with those who are already working in similar areas.
While we should try to make connections with as many like-minded people as possible, we must recognise that some partnerships can be counterproductive. While it is important to state a ´wrong', you may still wish to distance yourself from actions you do not agree with which state that they claim to be addressing the same ´wrong'. Both the World Bank and the violent rioters in Genoa say they are fighting poverty, but they both use violent means (be it neoliberal or anti-neoliberal violence). We must also recognise the tension between what we ultimately want and what is feasible or achievable at the moment.
Rob Fairmichael from Northern Ireland reported on INNATE's (Irish Network for Nonviolent Education and Training) experiences of working with people. He particularly highlighted the problems and possibilities of working in different cultures, and how we can use these to our advantage.
Nonviolence is a difficult concept in Northern Ireland. The term "anti-militarist" is not known, even amongst those working with peace and reconciliation matters.
However, we can take a more positive perspective, by looking for crossovers or possible exchanges. Where can we learn from others and others learn from us?
(a) Nonviolence training work, including tactics. Monitoring and observing.
(b) Networking Information -- regular newssheets.
This question of culture and mixing indigenous cultures dynamically was discussed in depth. Facing up to how different cultures help or hinder us can benefit us greatly in linking with people. Specific examples are:
There are various forms of nonviolent action, including "direct action". This is frequently seen as the most pure and sexy form of action. Other, less physical, forms of nonviolent action can be just as important, of which one is Peace education. Many forms of direct action are very "anti", very confrontational. Protesting or demonstrating against something. Gandhi stressed the importance, alongside demonstrations, of having a constructive programme. We must aim to "construct peace".
We all agree that we want to change from militarism, hate and violence, but how do we achieve what the UN refers to a "culture of peace".
Tony Augarde from the Peace Pledge Union (PPU) presented two quotes to highlight the importance if education. The 1945 UNESCO Constitution begins, "Wars begin in the minds of men", while an old Jesuit maxim says, "Give me a child for the first seven years, and you may do what you like with him after that". Changes start in the mind. One needs to shift attitudes before real changes can happen. We can influence states and governments; lobby like mad, but eventually there has to be some change in attitudes.
Educational materials are quite easy to produce with a small group of people (there are 1000 members of the Peace Pledge Union). This is an essential form of nonviolent action, especially as others are trying to put nasty attitudes into people's minds. Children' s minds are being filled with prejudice, military ideas, racism, religious dogma and the acceptance of hatred. We need to counteract this. But to what extent is it legitimate to try to transmit ideas to children, to change people's minds and attitudes? When does it become indoctrination?
Peace groups may be invited to teach conflict resolution in schools. Does this ignore the wider political issues, such as war and militarism? Children who have learned to co-operate nonviolently might still go to the army or take a job in the arms industry. But at least we can enable them to make a more conscious decision. There was also some discomfort at operating in schools, as some felt that "schools are prisons" and should be abolished as restrictive institutions.
There were also concerns that education is increasingly vocational training, merely preparing children to do the jobs that society requires. Surely "real education" required a reorientation towards "lifeskills", such as encouraging co-operation, making connections and enabling people to make conscious decisions and choices. Education must concern the whole of society.
Peace education is a vital subject area in establishing a better future, in both conflict and non-conflict areas. However, in concentrating on formal education, we must not forget the major influences exerted on young people by their parents, peer groups and wider society.
Small groups face a challenge in taking on the big opportunities presented by the interdependent chains, e.g. what resources can we use to take advantage of openings around shares and investments.
Despite the frequent disillusionment in activist circles, there have been several very effective linkups. These include:
What is linking with the state?
"Engaging in a struggle with the state" does partially define the terms of that struggle. It is the state, which lays down the margins of tolerance within which it will allow change. A route into this can be to ask, "How do we cope with the state?" rather than "Do we link with the state?" It is worth remembering that the state is not a solid block, but a conglomerate of mechanisms, working together or against one another.
Is tackling officials or parliamentarians linking with the state? Is involving them in actions? Using the court system? Receiving money from state institutions? There is no clear yes or no to these general questions: it depends on the specific situations. Whatever "linking" there is must remain subject to careful strategising by the campaign: it is necessary to break the campaign up into several smaller, reasonable aims.
For years, the Belgian anti-nuclear arms campaign had remained practically dormant, until the International Court of Justice verdict on the illegality of weapons of mass destruction provided the campaign with a strong impetus. Whereas, previously, it had only been possible to use political arguments against government policy, it now became possible to declare government policy illegal and take advantage of the court system. A particularly attractive aspect of this whole approach was that the Nuremberg Principle provided a legal base for nonviolent action: court cases deciding that NVDA in certain situations was legally justified were a major promotion for nonviolent action, further empowering people.
International law and particularly the Nuremberg principles can legally restrain states by revoking their sovereignty if they commit war crimes. This can be taken in two ways. Either it legitimates state power in all other cases (where "war crimes" are not committed). Or, more positively, it can be seen to disarm states' repressive mechanisms.
In Belgium, actions carried out at military bases are no longer prosecuted. This is not because of the international law argument, but because the court system chooses not to address the challenge. This refusal to prosecute has created many new spaces and opportunities for NVDA.
There are two aspects to direct action -- confrontation (direct effect) and communication (indirect effect), the second of these frequently being ignored or forgotten. With successful action, we conquer a position on the political and public agenda. Sometimes, there is an opening of the state to our message so how do we cope with this?
The easiest, but most ineffective tactic, would be to merely ignore our achievement so far and continue confrontation as before. Alternatively, we can engage with the newly available channels, opening up dialogue. Accordingly the Belgian anti-nuke campaign has made links with parliamentarians eager to present the anti-nuclear argument, writing resolutions for members of the Green, Socialist and Flemish Nationalist parties. It is possible to make use of parliament in such a way that it acts against official government policy. This will not achieve revolution, but it is a political translation of the campaign into parliament.
While we must always be careful to avoid being manipulated, with simple campaigns such as "Abolish nukes", it is not necessary to compromise our message. The base of the campaign must still remain NVDA at military bases, as a campaign reduced to political lobbying would have zero effect. Careful strategising is essential. "How are we linking with the state?" "What are our intermediate, realisable goals?" "Are they working against us or not?" Build a campaign around something practical: rather than say, "Abolish the state", we need to say, "Start with your nukes".
We must recognise the value of confrontational NVDA as a tactic, but not as the sole focus of the campaign. To achieve any change, there must be some space for dialogue. Direct action as such is, after all, only a use of power, albeit nonviolent power. A campaign solely focused on NVDA could be seen as a nonviolent "total war", however strange this might appear. We must not be limited to the use of this form of power, but keep creating and using opportunities for dialogue so that as many, and as broad a range of, people as possible can relate to and receive our message.
Compromises in methodology also broaden our support base, however uncomfortable it might seem to incorporate politicians and VIPs into our campaign. The effects of the broadening of the Belgian anti-nuke campaign have extended to direct action, which is no longer seen as a radical action, but as a normal thing to do.
It is important to recognise that movements tend to close themselves in on an exclusive activist subculture. This has particularly been the case with NVDA against the state and capitalism. We need to find ways to involve people who only partially share our goals and tactics.
It is important to talk to the "Other", i.e. those disagreeing with us, whether they are government, militarists, capitalists or whoever: communication with officials and media -- those in segments which create the influential sphere -- is essential.
Links can be built on the topic of education. Nonviolent action is important in communication with, and influencing others. Not only in the formal education of children and youth but also in adult education, particularly that of politicians and journalists.
While this might sound utopian, in Croatia, the Centre for Women's Studies and Centre for Peace Studies have been, and still are, running courses and workshops for female politicians and journalists, on presentation skills, empowerment and in general strengthening the skills required for these professions. While doing this, it is possible to place women's issues on the agenda, which including more rights for women and cutting the military budget. The dialogue in these workshops is thus not limited to skills training, but extends to the content being discussed. This has opened new spaces for lobbying: We are increasingly realising that we can put national (including criminal) law, international customary law as well as UN declarations to our own use.
We must also extend the network of people we communicate and engage with, to organisations such as trade unions and parliament (rather than government, which in Croatia and throughout the world is constantly trying to cut back the power of parliament.)
There is always a danger of being coopted, especially of feeling co-opted, but we must fight the spectre of war at all levels, grassroots, media, state and supra-state.
The core of this campaign is to gain state recognition of the human right to be exempted from military taxation.
It has been possible to use legal and parliamentary precedent to demand the alternative use of taxes. As real conscientious objectors, people should be able to divert their taxes to non-military security.
But this raises the question: Can we talk of genuine nonviolent action being carried out by the state?
Conscience promotes the concept of non-military security. While people are very used to the concept of national security, few are familiar with concepts of preventing war, of peace building, of transforming violent conflict -- of operating in a nonviolent way at a national level.
Small-scale, grassroots peace building actions, such as the Balkan Peace Team, are valuable, but are not large-scale enough to prevent wars. To intervene nonviolently on a scale large enough to prevent a war, we require supra-state organisations such as OSCE. Conscience demands that taxpayers should be able to choose to spend their money on initiatives like this, rather than waiting for conflicts and then sending in NATO troops.
Conscience is aware there are compromises entailed in this campaign. E.g. In campaigning for the right to exemption from military tax it is not addressing, and could be even said to be condoning, the very existence of the military. Hence it wouldn't appear to support the rights of total objectors to the existence of the military. However the campaign chooses to focus on conscientious objection to funding the military as there is a legal precedent for CO, and it is an achievable goal.
So though it is a compromise to work with organisations such as the British government, which prepares daily for nuclear war, the peace movement's resources too limited to create single-handedly an alternative security system, and has no choice but to work with governments to change their attitudes.
We need to engage in the debate on a European Defence Identity with our own states and with other states. We must show that it is possible to look at security in a broader sense. What does security really mean (as raised by the report from India)? Can we achieve "genuine security", rather than military security? The government is beginning to pay lip service to the concept but it is unlikely that the government will suddenly start to act nonviolently on its own. However, there is scope for them to act far less violently.
Without denying the value of grassroots actions or calling for uncritical support for the state, if we are serious about building peace on a global level, we have to link with state and state-level institutions.
In working for social movements and wanting to achieve some goals, it is of course necessary to work with existing structures and take reality into account: we cannot just wait for the nonviolent anarchist revolution. However, to take WRI's Declaration to "remove all causes of war" seriously, it is necessary to abolish the state. We must keep this in mind while campaigning.
The state and war are twins. States are incapable of true peace. The military is the greatest marker of a state's sovereignty. With anti-militarist action it is impossible not to come into contact with the state, as this is the primary target, but we must be wary of this contact.
For example, there are many international agreements on limiting particular armaments, such as nuclear weapons and landmines, and it is good to campaign for such agreements, as they limit the existence and use of such violent weapons. However, we must be very careful, since to campaign, and particularly to lobby, for these restrictions, it is necessary to adopt the military logic of governments. There is a risk of our true message (that it is precisely the military system which is the cause of war) being swallowed up or obscured.
CO was originally a very anarchist action, and it still is in the many countries, which do not provide a framework for it. However, many European countries now offer an alternative service. CO is a not so radical form of using state regulation for "seemingly anti-militarist actions". We could of course campaign to improve CO, or even for COs to work on anti-militarist campaigns. But this would be legitimising the whole notion of forced conscription.
But states are by their essence not capable of peace. Peace is more than the absence of war. Peace requires a just society. States and a just society are a contradiction in terms.
To achieve true peace, we need the nonviolent anarchist revolution, but we don't have it.
We must engage with what we have: there are no clear-cut solutions, particularly with the development of constructive alternatives. States are becoming more involved in civilian conflict resolution, nonviolent intervention and peace service schemes. It is becoming harder to avoid contact with the state, for example with funding level -- Do we take money from the state? What if it comes indirectly, though a foundation? There are no clear answers but there are some guidelines to evaluate with:
Especially in an environment such as WRI, some people don't want to tell governments anything other than "dissolve yourself".
However, we cannot engage with the day-to-day wrongs and abuses perpetrated by governments if we do not (at least temporarily) recognise their practical jurisdiction and sovereignty. To achieve anything, we must engage with those institutions that control the power, and whether we like it or not, the most powerful institution remains the state.
We cannot complain that a government has mucked things up again if we do not offer policy proposals or alternatives: it might be more fruitful to take the approach that states which abuse the human rights of their people forfeit their sovereignty over these people.
Or does this merely serve to legitimise the criminal monopoly of power by states?
Militarism is inextricably linked in with the wider patriarchal capitalist system we live in. This analysis however allows us to build links for setting ourselves short-term goals. And while doing that it is necessary for us to keep in view and understand the place of those short-term goals within the larger picture.
This suggests a shift to include acting towards more realistic, small-scale aims and a new variation on the theme: "Think total, act local"
Some reoccurring themes during the seminar were:
It is crucial that we present nonviolent action as something "normal". At the moment many people place it in the same arena as violence, sometimes as even more radical, as it is perceived to be against the status quo.
We must present nonviolent action not only as something positive, but also as the duty of every responsible citizen. "Nonviolence can combine non-cooperation -- withdrawal of support from a system of oppression -- with constructive work to build alternatives. As a way of engaging in conflict, sometimes nonviolence attempts to bring reconciliation with it, strengthening the social fabric, empowering those at the bottom of society, and including people from different sides in seeking a solution. Even when such aims cannot immediately be achieved, our nonviolence holds us firm in our determination not to destroy people."
The Broken Rifle is the newsletter of War Resisters' International. It is published three times a year in English, German, Spanish, and French; contact the office for subscription rates.
wri-irg.org
War Resisters' InternationalDonate to WRI