Ukraine and the dilemmas of pacifism

May 12, 2022

From Johan Maurer

But let’s say you and I have put all our eggs into the Jesus bas­ket. Aban­don­ing non­vi­o­lence is sim­ply not an option. What can we say that is dif­fer­ent from the cal­cu­la­tions of our peace-loving friends and neigh­bors who are cast­ing about for polit­i­cal solu­tions and com­pro­mis­es when evi­dence sug­gests that the aggres­sor is com­plete­ly unin­ter­est­ed in what we think of him?

The Quaker Peace Testimony and Ukraine

March 31, 2022

Over on Friends Jour­nal, the head of Sid­well Friends School on Quak­ers and paci­fism is get­ting some atten­tion, in part I think because it’s not abso­lutist on pacifism:

Quak­ers are short on dog­ma and long on dis­cern­ment, a process that calls indi­vid­u­als to inter­ro­gate cir­cum­stances, seek truth, and act upon their con­science. Over the cen­turies indi­vid­ual Quak­ers have engaged in war­fare pro­vid­ed they deemed the cause just. Some­where between thir­ty and fifty per­cent of eli­gi­ble U.S. and British Quak­ers fought in World War I, and approx­i­mate­ly three-quarters chose to bear arms in World War II. 

His­to­ry is his­to­ry, of course, and Friends’ atti­tudes have actu­al­ly been more flu­id than our peace tes­ti­mo­ny would let on. The first rejoin­der online comes from Don Bad­g­ley:

So, let us be clear; with­out the direct and present lead­er­ship of the Divine Source, our so-called “tes­ti­monies” crum­ble to dust. Absent that One Source these “tes­ti­monies” are lit­tle more than religio-political pos­tur­ing, relics — and impos­si­ble to jus­ti­fy, espe­cial­ly with­in the con­text of the actu­al evil we see in the world today. Alter­na­tive­ly, when we tes­ti­fy to the whole world about the life-altering Truths that orig­i­nate in our Expe­ri­ence of the Divine Pres­ence, that min­istry is imbued with a vital, even mirac­u­lous power. 

As in most things Quak­er, I find myself intel­lec­tu­al­ly in agree­ment with both of them (we’ve got a com­pli­cat­ed his­to­ry). I’m per­son­al­ly quite paci­fist. Even defen­sive wars kill inno­cents and lib­er­a­to­ry good guys have become tyrants over and over again in his­to­ry. But I have to admit I’ve been quite grate­ful to see Ukraini­ans suc­cess­ful­ly hold­ing the Russ­ian army at bay. I think it’s pos­si­ble for paci­fists to be strate­gic and even have an edge of realpoli­tik as we ques­tion war-making, both philo­soph­i­cal­ly and tactically. 

George Lakey on people power in Ukraine

February 25, 2022

The Quak­er activist looks back at non­vi­o­lent resis­tance strug­gles to pre­vi­ous super­pow­er inva­sions in places like 1968 Czecho­slo­va­kia and 1940s Denmark.

What strikes me as extra­or­di­nary about these and oth­er suc­cess­ful cas­es is that the non­vi­o­lent com­bat­ants engaged in their strug­gle with­out the ben­e­fit of train­ing. What army com­man­der would order troops into com­bat with­out train­ing them first? 

We’ve been talk­ing about these kinds of resis­tance in peace cir­cles for decades and kudos to Gene Sharp, who cat­e­go­rized a lot of the tech­niques, and Eri­ca Chenoweth, who has done a lot more recent work. When peo­ple doubt that paci­fism can work, we can turn to this research to prove it does — or can. The trou­ble is the body count can get high. Putin’s not an empa­thet­ic guy and it seems his para­noia and mega­lo­ma­nia is get­ting worse. I’m wor­ried that he’s not above an extend­ed blood­bath if it feeds his vision of a greater Russian.

https://​wag​ingnon​vi​o​lence​.org/​2​0​2​2​/​0​2​/​u​k​r​a​i​n​e​-​d​o​e​s​n​t​-​n​e​e​d​-​t​o​-​m​a​t​c​h​-​r​u​s​s​i​a​s​-​m​i​l​i​t​a​r​y​-​m​i​g​h​t​-​t​o​-​d​e​f​e​n​d​-​a​g​a​i​n​s​t​-​i​n​v​a​s​i​on/

Stop the Zipper War Before It Starts

January 30, 1998

Why is Pres­i­dent Clin­ton talk­ing about a reprise of the 1991 Per­sian Gulf War?

We’re told it’s because U.N. inspec­tors believe that Iraq has hid­den “weapons of mass destruc­tion.” But of course so does the Unit­ed States. And Britain, France, Rus­sia, the Ukraine, Chi­na, India and Pak­istan. Iraq does­n’t even hold a region­al monop­oly, as Israel cer­tain­ly has atom­ic weapons atop U.S.-designed rock­ets aimed this very moment at Hus­sein’s Bagh­dad palaces.

Insanely-destructive weapons are a fact of life in the fin-de-Millennium. There’s already plen­ty of coun­tries with atom­ic weapons and the mis­sile sys­tems to lob them into neigh­bor­ing coun­tries. Hus­sein prob­a­bly does­n’t have them, and the weapons U.N. inspec­tors are wor­ried about are chem­i­cal. This is the “poor man’s atom­ic bomb,” a way to play at the lev­el of nuclear diplo­ma­cy with­out the expens­es of a nuclear program.

Clin­ton seems obliv­i­ous to the irony of oppos­ing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruc­tion with our own. The air­craft car­ri­ers and bat­tle fleets that have been sent into the Gulf in recent weeks are loaded with tac­ti­cal nuclear missiles.

If the pos­ses­sion of weapons of mass destruc­tion is wrong for Iraq, then it is wrong for every­one. It is time to abol­ish all weapons pro­grams and to build real world peace along lines of cooperation.

He’s our Bully

Most Amer­i­cans, on hear­ing a call to let Hus­sein be, will react with dis­be­lief. Con­di­tioned to think of him as our mod­ern Hitler, any­one oppos­ing a new Gulf War must be crazy, some­one unfa­mil­iar with the his­to­ry of the appease­ment of Hitler pri­or to World War II that allowed him to build his mil­i­tary to the fright­en­ing lev­els of 1939.

But Amer­i­cans have alas not been told too much of more recent his­to­ry. Sad­dam Hus­sein is our cre­ation, he’s our bul­ly. It start­ed with Iran. Obsessed with glob­al mil­i­tary con­trol, the U.S. gov­ern­ment start­ed arm­ing region­al super­pow­ers. We gave our cho­sen coun­tries weapons and mon­ey to bul­ly around their neigh­bors and we looked the oth­er way at human rights abus­es. We cre­at­ed and strength­ened dic­ta­tors around the world, includ­ing the Shah of Iran. A rev­o­lu­tion final­ly threw him out of pow­er and ush­ered in a gov­ern­ment under­stand­able hos­tile to the Unit­ed States.

Rather than take this devel­op­ment to mean that the region­al super­pow­er con­cept was a bad idea, the U.S. just chose anoth­er region­al super­pow­er: Iraq. We looked the oth­er way when the two got into a war, and start­ed build­ing up Iraq’s mil­i­tary arse­nal, giv­ing him the planes and mil­i­tary equip­ment we had giv­en Iran. This was a bloody, crazy war, where huge casu­al­ties would be racked up only to move the front a few miles, an advance that would be nul­li­fied when the oth­er army attacked with the same lev­el of casu­al­ties. The Unit­ed States sup­port­ed that war. Inter­na­tion­al human rights activists kept pub­li­ciz­ing the abus­es with­in Iraq, and denounc­ing him for use of chem­i­cal weapons. They got lit­tle media atten­tion because it was not in U.S. polit­i­cal inter­ests to fight Hussein.

Noth­ing’s real­ly changed now except U.S. polit­i­cal inter­ests. Hus­sein is still a tyrant. He’s still stock­pil­ing chem­i­cal weapons. Why are U.S. polit­i­cal inter­ests dif­fer­ent now? Why does Bill Clin­ton want U.S. media atten­tion focused on Iraq? Look no fur­ther than Big Bil­l’s zip­per. Stop the next war before it starts. Abol­ish every­one’s weapons of mass destruc­tion and let’s get a Pres­i­dent who does­n’t need a war to clear his name.