GLOBAL ACTION TO PREVENT WAR
|
| November 13, 2002
"Global Action to Prevent War: Ethical and Spiritual
Challenges" Excerpt from Sharon D. Welch, The Art of
Peacemaking Professor of Religious Studies and Women Studies
What are the challenges facing us now in the peace movement? What are the opportunities for abolishing or lessening the risk of war? The challenges are obvious – the spiral of violence in the Middle East, the threat of terrorism throughout the world, the tensions between India and Pakistan. These threats to peace are real, have deadly consequences, and require immediate response. At the same time, there are numerous opportunities for peace and nonviolent conflict resolution, opportunities to institutionalize alternatives to war. How do we remain fully aware of both realities? How do we respond to them? Bob Herbert poses the challenge succinctly:
How do we respond to the use of military force by the Bush administration and the widespread support for military force by most people in the United States? Rather than merely denounce these responses, it is important to understand them more deeply. It is actually quite understandable why people resort to the use of military force. The reasons are simple, and not merely arrogance and bellicosity. People are responding to danger with the tools that they have. While we may be able to imagine alternative responses – the use of international mediators, an international court, etc – these responses do not have the known status and evident power of military forces. The International Criminal Court, a plausible venue for prosecuting terrorists, has only recently been ratified, and it does not have a solid history or acceptance. It is, in fact, being soundly resisted by the Bush administration. By turning to the use of the military, people in the United States are responding with the institutions, with the means, that they have, know and trust. What is most needed now is not a mere denunciation of militarism. We can do far more. We can strengthen other institutional forms of response to terrorism and violence and make them more useful and usable. We can also be deeply grateful that these other forms of response do not need to be invented. There are many alternative ways of responding to conflict that already exist. Our task is not to invent them, but to nurture the seeds of what is already in place. What is already in place? What other ethical traditions and political strategies exist now? In our current situation, many people are acting out of two well known, and long established Western responses to the brutality of war, the just war tradition and a pacifist critique of war. Those who advocate the use of military force do so in the language of the just war tradition, claiming that its essential conditions are met – the use of force is a response to the provocation and attacks of others, and the cause for which one fights is itself legitimate and warranted. Some political and military leaders also argue jus in bellum, that the means used are proportionate to the threat, and that all feasible means are taken to safeguard civilian populations: the targets are military installations and personnel, and not civilian populations, and any civilian casualties are tragic errors, to be avoided if all possible. There are also people who continue the Western and Gandhian traditions of ethical and religious pacifism, refusing to be drawn into pragmatic rationales for the destruction of human life and the ecological devastation of war. They powerfully decry what is lost in human lives, in political rights, in economic and ecological resources, in the brutalization of heart necessary to kill other human beings. We desperately need such protests, such clear denunciations of the folly and horror of war. We need the courage of those, like the Israeli officers, who refuse to serve in unjust situations. We need the presence of those Israelis and Palestinians demonstrating for peace, declaring that "we are not each other’s enemy." We need the people in the United States who stand at post offices and crowded streets in solidarity with those who suffer and in silent witness to the horror of war. Without such principled objections to war, without such resolute commitment to peace, I would question our humanity. Without other actions, however, without sustained, concerted attempts to institutionalize means of preventing war, I question our creativity and wisdom. Other institutional responses to the threat of war do not have to be invented. We can, rather, build on the work of those who have seen the horror of war, and have imagined concrete alternatives. In 16th century Europe, Desiderius Erasmus, Europe’s most renowned intellectual, passionately advocated "the art of peacemaking," an art he saw as more noble, and far more difficult, than that of waging war. Erasmus was critical of the use of the just war theory in his time: used by Christian princes to justify their wars against each other, and used by Christians to justify their war against the Turks. His refutation of the critical leverage of the just war theory was succinct and simple, challenging those who claimed that "it is a sin to fight in a spirit of vengeance, but not if it is for love of justice.’" – "Who does not think his own cause just?" (Erasmus, 337) As Erasmus wrote in his "Adages" in 1517, "the greatest evils have always found their way into the life of men and women under the semblance of good" (Erasmus, 317) Like Erasmus five hundred years ago, many people now are critical of the just war tradition and decry the enormous suffering caused by war. "Dulce bellum inexpertis" – war is sweet to those who have not experienced it. (Erasmus, 308 ) Erasmus did not deny the reality of conflict. Conflict itself is not to be avoided. On the contrary, conflict is often positive and necessary. Conflict does not always reach the point that Girard describes as the double bind – seeing the annihilation of the other as the condition for one’s own survival. Central to the understanding of Erasmus and Kant, in their advocacy of perpetual peace and the arts of peacemaking, was not the notion that humans can learn to become predominately and thoroughly peaceful and just. Their core assumption about human nature is just the opposite – without peaceful means of resolving conflict, without regularized institutions to help people understand each other, we will turn to violence and war. It is more likely than not that people will continue to hate each other, and be tempted to theft, murder, and assault. We need, then, laws, judicial systems, and regular police forces, and not vigilantes to respond to sporadic outbreaks of violence. There are constructive alternatives to war, fitting vehicles for our rage, anguish, passion and creativity. One such project is Global Action to Prevent War, an international coalition building effort to prevent war, terrorism, and genocide. "Now instead of working for peace in fragments, it is time to bring together these diverse approaches – conventional force reductions, limits on arms production and trade, cuts in military spending, measures to stop proliferation and build confidence, training for peaceful conflict resolution, and means for conflict resolution, peace building, and peacekeeping – in a unified program to prevent war." (Global Action, 1999) The Global Action program is a coalition of international peace groups and NGO’s, working on a 40 – 50 year project to institutionalize alternatives to war. . It was developed in 1998 by Randall Forsberg, founder and director of the Cambridge-based Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies, Ambassador (ret) Jonathan Dean, adviser on International Security Issues, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Saul Mendlovitz, Dag Hammarskjold Professor of International Law, Peace and World Order Studies at Rutgers University Law School, and founder and co-director of the World Order Models Project in New York City. Global Action has four major components: increasing the international capacity for early warning and early action, such as mediation, to prevent the escalation of disputes into armed violence; working against arms races and offensive military strategies; guarding against genocide; building commitment to the rule of law and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. While the goals of Global Action are dramatic and far-reaching, the basis of those goals is concrete, immediate, and tangible. Global Action works with organizations and resources that are already in place. It is an effort to bring together initiatives, to coordinate long-term and short-term efforts, in a comprehensive program to abolish war. The project is also open to revision and refinement through the input of more people, and in response to new challenges – i.e., revision 18 includes specific recommendations on how to respond to the terrorist attacks on the United States. The broad goals of Global Action can be met by working within, and strengthening, existing institutions. The priorities for 2000-2005 include working with the United Nations in four ways: (1)first, "[establishing a corps of 50 professional mediators at the disposal of the Secretary General and the Security Council;" second, "establish[ing] a conflict prevention committee in the UN General Assembly….[that] would send teams to possible conflict sites and invite witnesses to New York. It would give the UN, the world public, and national governments and legislatures comprehensive and balanced information on the disputed issues and propose possible solutions. The General Assembly already has Charter authority to establish such a committee." The third goal is to "establish a standing volunteer police force at the UN, initially consisting of 4,000-6,000 men and women." The fourth is to "promote effective implementation of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court…." (Global Action, 2002) Global Action strengthens existing institutions. Our understanding of the art, and science, of conflict mediation has expanded dramatically within the last 20 years. In nearly every school system within the United States, from elementary through high school, there are peer mediation programs in place designed to train young people to resolve conflicts peacefully. Many law schools have conflict mediation programs, providing training in alternative means of dispute resolution. This expertise can be fostered, these people, already trained in nonviolent means of conflict resolution, brought together under a number of different auspices; the first, a permanent center for conflict mediation within the United Nations, a corps of mediators, ready to respond whenever needed. The second will take longer, and is more far-reaching. When people are threatened, they do not have to invent strategies for the use of military force, nor do they have to create ad hoc military alliances – those organizations are already in place in regional security organizations. Another goal of Global Action addresses this imbalance by "strengthen[ing] the mediation and peacekeeping capabilities of existing universal-membership regional security organizations: the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization of American States (OAS), the African Union (formerly the Organization of African Unity), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). " We can also "promote the creation of comparable new universal-membership security organizations in the Middle East, South Asia, and the East Asia-Pacific region." (Global Action, 2002) As we move forward in this endeavor, we can build on the work in conflict mediation in the West, as well as on the centuries long traditions of community conflict resolution found within Buddhism. Thich Nhat Hanh, for example, describes the traditions of conflict mediation utilized for over 2000 years in Buddhist monasteries, and claims that we can apply these skills to other venues.(Thich Nhat Hanh, 1992) Another important component of providing alternatives to war is now in place. The International Criminal Court has been ratified "by most democratic nations and all European Union countries, along with Canada, New Zealand, and a number of African, Eastern European and central Asian countries." The purpose of the Court is to "prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and other war crimes." (Lewis, New York Times, May 5, 2002). Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld rejects the Court as a threat to U.S. sovereignty, and warns of consequences of implementation that, to many of us, hardly seem undesirable:
Others see more promise in cooperation with the court, and point to the danger of foregoing this opportunity for international justice.
The most recent revision of the Global Action program also addresses alternative means of responding to the recent terrorist attacks on the United States. The program, as developed by the members of the Peace and Security Task Force of the United Nations association of the National Capital Area, and described recently by Jonathan Dean, has two components, one immediate, the other preventative and long- term. An immediate proposal is that UN member states "bring al Qaeda leaders to public trial for crimes against humanity, preferably before an international tribunal organized by the United Nations." (UNA/NCA Task Force, March, 2002) Dean argues that the value of such a tribunal could be as vast as that of the Nuremberg trials. The public trials of Nazi war criminals served a dual purpose, bringing the people responsible for genocide to justice, and, of equal significance, exposing those crimes to public view, and thereby de-legitimizing Nazi ideology among former supporters of fascism within Germany and throughout the world. (Dean, 2002) Another immediate need is for the United States to work with the European
Union and Muslim states to prepare a joint proposal for settlement of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As many analysts of terrorism have pointed out – a key
component of this wave is a sense of profound humiliation and frustration at the inability
to resolve this conflict. (Dean, 2002). Other efforts are more long term – support
for economic development, health care, education and improved governance in Mideast
societies (UNA/NCA Taskforce, April 2002) Conclusion There are three major criticisms of the Global Action project; it requires the United States to give up its sovereignty; it could be misused by the U.S. or multilateral forces; it does not get at the root causes of war. Let’s begin with the first criticism. Many will be threatened by the loss of U.S. sovereignty if we support the International Criminal Court, and subject ourselves to its laws. Many will resist our reliance on multilateral efforts, when we now have the military power to act alone. William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, addresses the concerns of supporting international efforts to enforce human rights, and offers a pragmatic rationale for cooperating in the institutionalization of the rule of law, of shaping that law, and willingly subjecting ourselves to it:
Criticism number two: Some have argued that it is dangerous to work within existing institutions because of their complicity in the past with oppressive actions, even torture. This is a risk, but one that may be well worth taking. It serves to remind us Euro-Americans of what we tend to forget all too readily: in the name of noble ideals, we have justified atrocities. Given our distant and recent history, we need continuous checks to our proclivity for self-serving, and deadly, crusades. At times, conflict prevention and mediation will fail. Not all disputes in the private sphere can be resolved peacefully, not all public and international disputes will be resolved peacefully. It is highly unlikely that we will be able to prevent the use of force in every situation. Therefore, an international criminal court is necessary, as is a multilateral force to stop genocide. Such force, however, is less likely to serve as a mask for empire building if it is a multinational force, under the global checks and balances of multinational control, and is a multinational force. What will it take to develop multinational peacekeeping forces that are limited to defense and prevention? The American Friends Service Committee points out the danger that a turn to peace-keeping may become a justification for perpetual war.(American Friends Service Committee, 2002) This is a very real danger. We need other responses besides force, thus the importance of conflict mediation and prevention, the importance of the International Criminal Court. When force is required, vigilance, institutionalized checks to the use of force by peace keepers is as necessary as checks on the power of police forces within nation states. In order to implement nonviolent alternatives to war, we need to be continually aware of how we could turn the mechanisms of international law to the interests of domination and exploitation. It is better to have a police force than vigilantes, but as we well know, police have to be continuously monitored. It is also necessary to have ongoing measures to critically evaluate the justice and equity of the rule of law, hence far from perfect, but essential, complex system of appeals, judicial review, and citizen review boards. There are many who will resist the Global Action project – some because it is too far-reaching, others because it is not far-reaching enough. The third major criticism of Global Action highlights its limitations. Even if all of our proposals were implemented, the root causes of war would remain: imperial aggression, racism,and poverty. Even when Global Action is in place, other fundamental forms of injustice will remain: racism, sexism, environmental degradation, homophobia, poverty, and child abuse. My response to these criticisms is both simple and complex. On the one hand, the critics are, quite simply, right. Global Action does not remove the root causes of war, nor does it address a whole set of equally urgent social issues. In her dialogue with Elise Boulding and other peace scholars, Randall Forsberg clearly articulated this nonutopian vision of Global Action – it is a piece of our collective work for justice; it is not all that must be done to create a just world. "The idea that we can create a genuinely egalitarian participatory society that meets human needs is a concept that goes far beyond the absence of war." (Forsberg, 46) Forsberg claims that we do not have to eliminate all structural violence, and create a "genuinely egalitarian participatory society" before we can eliminate war. As a piece of work for justice, Global Action complements other initiatives: it does not replace them. On the other hand, my response is far more complex. Steeped in the tradition of biblical prophecy and American utopianism, I, along with many others of my generation, saw our work as revolutionary activists to be that of establishing justice on earth now, in our generation and for all future generations. Half measures, incremental changes were anathema. We did not want reform, we wanted revolution: a world in which all peoples lived equitably, in harmony with each other and with all of nature. The watchword for this type of activism was simple: "no one is free until everyone is free." I have learned from the life and writings of Carol Lee Sanchez and the writings of other members of the Pueblo nation. Within the Pueblo nation, living wisely, seeing all life as sacred is all-encompassing and differentiated. No one knows all the requisite ceremonies and stories. No one is responsible for all tasks. Rather, everyone has a particular task, and an invaluable part in the mosaic of collective life: no one, however, is responsible for definitively establishing or maintaining justice in their lifetime, much less for all time. What sheer arrogance and folly to think otherwise! Why did we ever think that our perspective on injustice was the sole fulcrum to move the massive burden of oppression? How sane, how freeing, to realize we only see a fragment of what it takes to live well. We are called to a particular task, and, we are not alone. Others are as compelled to establish a sound, just economic order as we are compelled to establish nonviolent alternatives to war. We need each others’ efforts. We respond to the task of living in Beauty, we live out the gift of wisdom and compassion, in innumerable ways: some work in shelters for battered women, others work on providing equitable and affordable health care; others seek environmentally sound agricultural practices. Does another slogan come to mind – "let a hundred flowers bloom"? The slogan, and its accompanying reality, the suppression of dissent and diversity by many Chinese communists, demonstrates how difficult it is for many of us to truly welcome the countless paths to peace and to justice, the countless ways of living with wisdom and compassion. Many people are committed to Global Action because they find it
politically, spiritually and/or ethically compelling. We can work together to make war as
abhorrent as slavery, torture and child labor. In this task, as with the abolition of
those other forms of injustice, the struggle will be long. There will likely be people and
governments who try to reinstate these practices, even after they have been rejected by
millions of peoples for decades. Furthermore, as we work to end war, it is highly likely
that there will be other wars, and other serious threats to world peace. As we
respond to these new threats we can continue to be nourished by the beauty and wonder of
life, and hold fast to our responsibility to stop the brutal taking of life by our
governments in war. In this long task, Thich Nhat Hanh offers us a practice, not a set of
beliefs, but habits of attention, of mindfulness that can open our hearts and minds, that
can provide solace, peace and courage. He challenges us to relinquish our longing for
"the kind of peace [that requires] the defeat of one side in order to satisfy [our]
anger." (Hanh, 1992, 114-115) As we relinquish the longing for vengeance, as we
accept the pain of our limits, we may find the gift of a deep joy and satisfaction.
Elise Boulding and Randall Forsberg, Abolishing War, Cultures and Institutions: Dialogue with Elise Boulding and Randall Forsberg. Boston: Boston Research Center for the 21st Century. 1998. Elise Boulding and Randall Forsberg, Abolishing War, Cultures and Institutions: Dialogue with Elise Boulding and Randall Forsberg. Boston: Boston Research Center for the 21st Century. 1998. Jonathan Dean, "Are We Fighting the Right War Against Terrorism?" public lecture. University of Missouri-Columbia, April 26, 2002. Erasmus, Desiderius. The "Adages" of Erasmus: A Study with Translations. By Margaret Mann Phillips. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964. Global Action to Prevent War. The Global Action Program. Revision 10. April 1999. Global Action to Prevent War. The Global Action Program. Revision 18, March, 2002. http://www.globalactionpw.org. Bob Herbert, "Betraying Humanity," New York Times. March 28, 2002. Neil A. Lewis, "U.S. Is Set to Renounce Its Role in Pact for World Tribunal," New York Times, May 5, 2002. Neil A. Lewis, "U.S. Rejects All Support for New Court on Atrocities," New York Times, May 7, 2002, A9. William F. Schulz, In Our Own Best Interests: How Defending Human Rights Benefits Us All. Boston: Beacon Press. 2001. Thich Nhat Hanh, Peace is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life. New York: Bantam Books. 1992. United Nations Association/National Capital Area Task Force on Peace and Security, "Fighting Effective War Against Terrorism," March 19, 2002.
|