I am delighted to see someone asking the questions you're asking. As a
person who believes that nonviolence is almost always preferable to
violence (I'm not a strict pacifist but certainly have sympathies in
that direction), I like you find it dismaying that going to war is
seen as the only way to fight terror.
One thing that President G.W. Bush has cleverly done is to make it
appear that there is only one way to fight terror, and that's his way,
and any other approach is seen as either folly or unpatriotic.
Fortunately, you and I aren't the only ones would believe there are
better ways.
The thinker I'm most familiar with is Jim Wallis, who heads up
Sojourners, a Christian organization based in Washington, D.C. Wallis
is quite well known in Christian activist circles, and (as far as I
know) he has practiced what he preaches, living among the poor as he
seeks to bring peace and justice to the world. One thing I have
appreciated about Wallis is that he has thought carefully about the
issues, and he doesn't hesitate to criticize both sides of a conflict.
Too much of the left seems to minimize the atrocities of the
Palestinians, for example, as if it somehow boosts the cause of
nonviolence to ignore the violence of the other side. But Wallis
recognizes the propensity toward violence and evil of both sides.
All that said, I suggest you look at the online version of the
Sojourners magazine. You'll find articles and discussions on the issue
you raise. Although much of it is from a Christian faith-based
perspective, I'm sure you'll find plenty useful even if you are of
another faith or none.
You'll find the home page of Sojourners here:
SojoNet
http://www.sojo.net/
I believe you will find the following article particularly
informative. I am including some excerpts to give you an idea of
Wallis' thinking on this issue.
Disarm Iraq without War
"Saddam Hussein is not a suicide bomber. Rather, the only consistent
commitment he has ever shown has been to the preservation of his own
power. Those who minimize his evil are morally irresponsible; those
who underestimate his willingness to commit mass murder are making a
serious mistake. But the question is, what's our best response? What
would protect lives in danger rather than threaten even more and
potentially make everything worse?"
"... The international community can either unite in an effective
strategy to isolate, contain, disarm, and ultimately undermine the
brutal and dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein, or simply agree to the
war agenda of the world's last remaining superpower. As for the
reasonable goal of 'regime change,' the Iraqi people themselves must
create the nonviolent civil resistance within their country to help
achieve that goal ..."
http://www.sojo.net/news/index.cfm/action/display_archives/mode/current_opinion/article/CO_091802.html
Also read the following thoughtful article, which is related more
closely to terrorism rather than the pending war on Iraq:
Hard Questions for Peacemakers
"The 'just war' theory has been used and abused to justify far too
many of our wars. This crisis should not turn us to the just war
theory, but rather to a deeper consideration of what peacemaking
means. In the modern world of warfare, where far more civilians die
than soldiers, war has become ethically obsolete as a way of resolving
humankind's inevitable conflicts. Indeed, the number of people,
projects, and institutions experimenting in nonviolent methods of
conflict resolution has been growing steadily over the past decade
with some promising results.
"I am increasingly convinced that the way forward may be found in the
wisdom gained in the practice of conflict resolution and the energy of
a faith-based commitment to peacemaking. For example, most nonviolence
advocates, even pacifists, support the role of police in protecting
people in their neighborhoods. Perhaps it is time to explore a
theology for global police forces, including ethics for the use of
internationally sanctioned enforcement—precisely as an alternative to
war."
http://www.sojo.net/get_connected/index.cfm/mode/display/forum_id/23/action/forums.html
If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you'll also see some
interesting and thoughtful comments. I think you'll enjoy reading it,
as it shows there are people asking the same questions you are.
One of my thoughts on the matter is that the dilemma we face is that
we want a solution that results in the loss of no life. It is very
easy to argue (as war's supporters do) that nonviolence is
ineffective, because people are going to get killed by madmen like
Hussein. But the truth also is that war has serious drawbacks,
including the substantial risk of enormous losses of civilian life.
There really are no easy answers; if militarists want to cite the
shortcomings of nonviolence they should also look at the serious moral
and practical problems raised by going to war.
Like I said, I hope you can read through Sojourners. You'll find a
variety of views from a concerned and intelligent perspective.
In researching your question, I also became familiar with the thinking
of Arun Gandhi of the M.K. Institute for Nonviolence. Here are some
of his comments:
Terrorism and Nonviolence
"All of this brings us back to the question: How do we respond
nonviolently to terrorism?
"The consequences of a military response are not very rosy. Many
thousands of innocent people will die both here and in the country or
countries we attack. Militancy will increase exponentially and,
ultimately, we will be faced with other more pertinent moral
questions: What will we gain by destroying half the world? Will we be
able to live with a clear conscience?
"We must acknowledge our role in helping to create monsters in the
world, find ways to contain these monsters without hurting more
innocent people, and then redefine our role in the world. I think we
must move from seeking to be respected for our military strength to
being respected for our moral strength."
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11565
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/messages/nov18/gandhi.htm
In addition, here are some other resources I found:
Regime Change without Bloodshed
"Gene Sharp is a staunch proponent of people power. The Boston-based
sociologist is one of a handful of American researchers who say you
can topple a dictator nonviolently even in a country as beleaguered
and politically repressed as Iraq. The researchers’ strategies for
regime change stand in sharp contrast to the Bush administration’s
bloody scenarios -- everything from assassination to a blitzkrieg of
Baghdad -- for ousting Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
"According to Sharp and his associates, neither sanctions-induced
poverty nor the brutality of Saddam’s dictatorship precludes the
possibility of popular resistance in Iraq. What is necessary there, as
in any country, is good planning based on understanding of the
dynamics of power between oppressor and oppressed."
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/111502/111502g.htm
Perspectives on Terrorism and Nonviolence
This page has a long list of links to articles on the subject. I
haven't read them yet, but I certainly will!
http://www.brc21.org/resources/res_cmnt.html
Nonviolence versus Terrorism
This article lists four strategies of nonviolence that could be used
to counter terrorism.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/02sa.html
Global Insecurity in the Twenty-First Century
"In 'Losing Control,' Paul Rogers calls for a radical re-thinking of
western perceptions of security that embraces a willingness to address
the core issues of global insecurity. This acclaimed book has already
become an essential guide for anyone who wishes to understand the
current crisis, with the first edition even predicting accurately how
the United States would respond to a major attack."
http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/peace/pubs/prblurb.htm
198 Methods of Nonviolent Action
There are plenty of activities on this list I wouldn't recommend, but
it is interesting.
http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/resources/nonViolent198.htm
A Call for Peace with Justice in Responding to Terrorism
There's not much talk of specific solutions here, although a stress is
placed on looking at the root causes of terrorism.
http://www.mindspring.com/~wnpj/terrstmt.htm
Nonviolence after September 11?
"Some understand the Christian vocation to peacemaking after September
11 as a strenuous effort to restrain the evil of alien aggressors, and
to influence them so that they accept the ideals and norms of the
civilized family of nations. Such efforts may be necessary, but not
sufficient to describe peacemaking’s task of countering and
transforming attitudes that encourage violence. To focus solely on
these elements of peacemaking may prevent us from seeing something
else equally basic: the urgency of countering and transforming the
violence dwelling in our own hearts and embodied in the policies we
support. If peacemaking’s task is to drain the swamp of terrorism,
then we must recognize that our own feet are mired in the same morass
of terror and violence."
http://www.elca.org/jle/articles/contemporary_issues/september_11th/article.brandt_brian.html
A Sad Time for America and the World
"Perhaps what is saddest, however, is that the root causes of
terrorism are not being adequately addressed by our government. These
root causes include U.S. presence in the Middle East (to protect the
oil supplies there), the economic sanctions on Iraq, one-sided support
for Israel, economic disparities and oppressive conditions throughout
the world. If we want to reduce terrorism in the world, we must
address these root causes."
http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/apr02/06.HTM
This should provide you with plenty of reading for the next few days!
To summarize, the approaches recommended are more long-term than
short-term: looking at the root causes of terrorism, calling on the
United States and other major powers to set a moral example, using the
principles of conflict resolution, fighting poverty and other
injustices, and lending support to democratic institutions. The
realists recognize that, at least in the short term, none of these
methods can guarantee that terrorism will be abated. But the sad fact
is that neither can war.
So where's the safest place to go? That's a good question. In
general, isolated rural destinations -- even ones in the United States
-- are probably safer than large cities, which are more likely targets
as well as areas where disease (in the chase of a bioterrorist attack)
could spread more quickly. There would be any number of countries
where you should be safe if you're in an isolated area. If I had to
leave quickly to go somewhere, I'd probably go to northern Canada.
It's hard to get much more isolated than that!
There may be no countries that are entirely safe from terrorist
activities. Although Muslim fundamentalist terrorism isn't an issue in
some countries, there are also other types of terrorism, such as
various separatist movements as well as revolutionary groups and drug
lords. My personal suggestion (probably because I speak Spanish)
would be Costa Rica: It is politically and economically stable with
fairly high living and educational standards for Latin America. And
since it has a minimal military, it hasn't drawn the wrath of U.S.
enemies even though it is a U.S. ally. To be safer, though, I'd
suggest staying away from tourist areas where Americans congregate and
perhaps from the capital of San José as well. In fact, wherever you
would go, it would be best to stay away from places where Americans
congregate. You can get an overview of Costa Rica on the following
page:
The World Factbook 2002
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cs.html
Again, thanks for asking this question. I hope you find the
information enlightening and useful.
Sincerely,
mvguy
Google search: nonviolence terrorism
://www.google.com/search?num=25&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=nonviolence+terrorism&btnG=B%C3%BAsqueda+en+Google |
