Pacifism - Fighting without Violence?

Definition

Some definitions include moral/ religious dimension, some require absolute commitment to nonviolence. The one that suits me most is OED - 1905: Pacifism is the belief that it's possible & desirable to settle international disputes by peaceful means.

Different labels given to pacifists

1) -cowards, afraid to fight; or -brave people with courage to disobey orders & act independently.

2) -unpatriotic, because not willing to defend their country "right or wrong"; or truly patriotic because determined to stand for their country's democratic & humanitarian values without compromise.

3) -hopeless idealists, refusing to see evil or expecting to cure all by love; or -pragmatic realists who see no easy answers but are prepared to work at achieving nonviolent solutions.

4) -inconsistent because would end up fighting to save their own & their loved ones' lives; or -more consistent than warmongers who're prepared to kill innocent people from belief that they can't let enemy "get away with it".

No doubt most have mixed motives at different times.

I want to try & trace a progression from moral basis via legislation to common sense.

Religious background

There is a belief that it was assumed you fought for your group until advent of Christianity with talk of image of god etc. I don't believe it. I bet early hunter/gatherers would have come to accommodation with other groups in as many conflicts as possible (even as now, the most belligerant would prefer to get their way without fight). Besides, religions older that Christianity advocated nonviolence (eg. Hinduism)

All major religions (pagan, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism) have codes & guidelines for limitations of warfare. What is probably new about Christianity is injunction to "love your enemies...etc" For first 3 centuries Christians refused to serve in Roman army. & pacifist position continued throughout in "Peace churches": Waldensians, Moravians, Mennonites & Quakers, and in lots of individuals (eg.St. Francis, ML King)

Even non-pacifist churches felt need to draw up rules for what they called "Just War". (St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas) - "jus ad bellum", & "in bello"):

Must have:

1. a just cause

2. intention to promote a just peace

3. legitimate authority

4. reasonable prospect of success

5. Do it only as last resort.

6. It's never legitimate to kill an innocent person. Therefore (NB) must be able to discriminate.

7. It must be proportionate

Implication of all this: Modern warfare with increased killing power & technology would be condemned by all the above - because impossible to protect the innocent, neutral, civilians (there's no talk of permissible collateral damage!) and what proportionality could allow cluster bombs & nuclear weapons?

From this realisation grew ever new formulations of internat. & humanitarian law incorporated in customary law, adding various requirements:

eg. a)Declaration of St.Petersbg. 1868 - against "unnecessary suffering" b)Martens Clause 1899 - humanity must remain under protection of intrnat law derived from established custom, principles of humanity & dictates of pub, conscience".

Hague Conventions of 1899 &1907 Inviolability of neutrality

UN Charter 1945 - warfare must be proportionate

Universal Declaration of human rights 1948: people's inherent right to life & health

Geneva Conventions 1949 (directly into UK law thro Gen. Conv. Act 1957: protection for wounded, sick, expecting mums, civilian hospitals & health workers

Violations of all above became crimes against peace, war crimes & crimes ag. humanity under the Nuremberg Principles 1950

Internat.Committee of Red X 1987: civilian population & objects must be respected & protected in armed conflict, and for this they must be distinguished from combatants & military objectives.

There came setting up of Internat. Court of Justice in Hague, special War Crimes Tribunals on Yugoslavia, Rwanda & Internat. Criminal Court (even without US signature!)

And yet, and yet... Assumption that it's imposs. to live without war, because it's human nature to fight. Even though, throughout world, pacifists are in majority most of the time - and in most contexts, because it's pleasanter & more effective in long run.

So - what reasons make us fight?

1) Fear - must get him before he gets me! But he might think same about you. So vicious circle. Need to be brave to overcome fear (eg Gandhi - ""Nonviolence is the most active force in the world. It is a tool not for cowards, but for the bravest & the strongest."

2) Can't bear to be powerless in face of tyrant, dictator. Preconception that not to fight means to do nothing - ie pacifism means passivism. It makes us feel better to shoot, or burn down enemy's building, "do something". But sometimes have to acknowledge human condition of weakness! Can't hope to deal with all injustices in the world.

3) There's myth of efficacy of violence. It has instant effect, easy to achieve - ie death & destruction. Alliance of countries & massive weapons can destroy lives, cities, & may end tyranny etc. But may be v.v . Just cause doesn't guarantee victory. (Gandhi again: "... when it [violence] appears to do good, the good is only temporary, but the evil it does is permanent.")

3)"last resort" "When all else has failed" - based on 2 false assumptions: a) that everything else has been tried & b) that those attempts have been proved to be hopeless.

4) in governments, "deadlines" take over, both psychologically & politically - need to be seen to be decisive, whether advantageous or not!

What can be done?

"Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. It is a weapon unique in history as it cuts without wounding and it ennobles the person who wields it. It is a sword that heals."

Martin Luther King

ie it enhances you - just as violence corrupts you.

Campaign for justice, democratic reforms, human rights improvements, against social inequality, against economic exploitation, ag. arms trade

Campaign against double standards eg. WMD, belief that "my war is just, yours is not" etc.

give moral & practical support to nonviolent opposition groups etc. in countries concerned. (eg early support to opposition groups in Nazi Germany - Trade Unions, Social Democrats etc., discrimination against Jews, might have prevented rise of Hitler. (When bombing campaign over Germany in 1944, all closed ranks - even those opposed to Hitler - so prolonged war??)

Join or support Peace Brigades/ accompaniers/ human shields

develop culture of community not contest, co-operation not domination.

direct action to prevent preparations for war - eg. boycott or break sanctions (as appropriate)

withhold support eg tax

counteract propaganda, disseminate info, join with others

damage military equipment etc

BUT- NB be accountable, keep respect for all, even opponents, talk, negotiate - don't become corrupted by the very violence you try to stop.

"Peace is not the absence of tension, it's the presence of justice."

Martin Luther King

Where has nonviolence worked?

Most examples we don't even know about, because conflicts settled before conflict erupted don't make the news! Others are mixture of factors - but that doesn't diminish importance of NV campaigns.

Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany during breakup of Soviet regime - confronting tanks with gifts & flowers, candle-lit processions & vigils (holding candles shows practical good sense: "look- no weapons!")

Philippines at ousting of Pres. Marcos -flower power

anti-apartheid actions, Women in Black, Argentinian mothers of the disappeared, Greenham women - all contributed to change.

Hopes for Future

people's awareness has become globalised - we're outraged by tyrants in far-away places & want not to stand by watching atrocities without involvement. Therefore, sense of personal responsibility makes general public into "second superpower". The very fact that weapons have become globally destructive, also makes public more sensitive to issues of war & peace. (eg Feb15th demos world-wide)

Nelson Mandela said: The frightening thing is not how powerless we are, but how powerful we are!

It's up to all of us to make a nonviolent future work..l