My
1989 book "Harmony" was dedicated "to the pacifists", which was
inspired by my personal experience of German pacifism during a research
year in Munich in 1983. Since then there has been an awful lot of
irrational violence in the world that could have been prevented by
courageous pacifism. With the continuing conflicts in many parts of the
world and their
enormous death tolls, nothing could be more urgent than pacifism.
The basic idea of pacifism in any conflict situation is this: Stop fighting and start
negotiating.
Negotiation is always better than violence that causes the deaths of
innocent people. That is such a blatantly obvious statement you would
think everyone would understand it. But there are lot of stupid people
out there it seems.
Well, perhaps "stupid" is the wrong word. Instead, people seem to let
their negative emotions take over. In an interesting twist on "If it
feels good do it", those who promote the idea of military intervention
as a form of conflict resolution feel
that their anger (or the anger of the citizens they represent)
justifies violence, just as a rapist feels that his sexual desire
justifies rape.
Take the "war on terror" as an example. The attacks of 9/11 were
responses to US imperialism and militarism in the Arab world. Al-Qaeda
was angry about US support for violence against Muslims in areas such
as Palestine, Somalia, Chechnya, and Kashmir, the presence of US troops
in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia. Of course, nothing could
possibly have justified that attack on the US, just as nothing can possibly
justify US attacks on other countries. The US has bombed
24 countries since 1945,
and many of these attacks were far worse than 9/11. Both sides were
guilty, so a rational response would have been to improve
security
in appropriate manner, and then to investigate the causes of the
problem. Find out who is angry with whom, and why.
That is what "military intelligence" should be about. Evidently, it is
not.
Maybe the psychologists are responsible? I just checked the Wikipedia
page on "intelligence" and it contains no reference to wisdom, morality
or ethics(November
2015). Nothing of the sort! So you can be "intelligent"
and not care if your actions are causing millions of deaths? Maybe that
is because cognitive psychologists like to compare humans with
computers? Hmmm. But
I digress.
After 9/11, it was immediately obvious to anyone with a head and a
heart, or merely with the slightest idea of history, that fighting back
in that situation would just make the matter worse, but that is exactly
what George W. Bush and his international allies did. Every military
adventure in the "war on terror" increased the number of Islamic
extremists who were prepared to die for their cause. That was the US's
main achievement! The result was ISIS, and a general increase in the
number of terrorist attacks all over the world. The "war on terror" created
ISIS (by which I mean that without the war on terror, there would be no
ISIS). The problem is still getting worse, with no end in sight unless
the men (no women, to my knowledge) responsible for this tragic farce
come to their senses and start implementing rational pacifist policy.
The main culprits should be tried by the International Criminal Court
for crimes against humanity.
Men and their hormone problem
All of that makes you wonder why so many people think that
"women are victims of their hormones". Obviously, men have a bigger
problem with their hormones than women, because the negative
consequences of men's
hormone problem (anger leading to violence) are much greater. The
hysterical response to 9/11 was one of countless examples. That was
male hysteria, I hasten to add.
I am not
only talking about testosterone. Relevant hormones include the
catecholamines (epinephrine and norepinephrine) that
are secreted by the adrenal medulla, and
the
glucocorticoids that
are produced by the adrenal cortex, when we get angry - as part of the
fight-or-flight response. These hormones cause more problems in men
than women due to their greater physical strength, coupled with
culturally transmitted glorifications of male violence. If the world
was
run by women, there would surely be less irrational violence, which is
why pacifists are often also feminists.
Once we realise that angry men are victims of their hormones, we can
respond to their anger in a more rational manner. Responses to male
violence should not exacerbate their hormone
problem, because that generally increase the probability of
further violence. Instead, the challenge is to understand the cause of
the anger, and to address that problem. That is a pragmatic policy that
can be implemented at many levels from women
in difficult domestic situations to countries in difficult
international situations, including responses to terrorist attacks.
While trying to understand anger and violence in this way, we must
avoid the trap of condoning violence. Violence is always wrong, and
there is never any
excuse for it. Being a victim of one's hormones is never a good
excuse. After 9/11, many naive Americans (both leaders and voters) were
angry and wanted revenge, but that does not excuse the violent response
of a "war on terror", nor can those Americans claim in retrospect that
their hormones were responsible for their irrational behavior.
When anger comes up, the first thing to do is try to understand it and
think about how the anger could be released safely, without hurting
anyone. It is not a good idea to ignore an angry
reaction to an unfair decision, because that anger might then explode
into violence. To cite a famous
example, the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was one of the causes of
fascism and World War Two. Germany was forced to accept responsibility
for the loss and damage caused by the war. In fact, Germany was no more
or less guilty than the other powers; Germany had merely lost.
It was very unwise (to say the least) of Britain and France to sign a
treaty that was so obviously unfair and made another war more
likely.
It follows from these arguments that politicians need some training as
therapists, or at least an understanding of basic therapeutic
principles. That would put them in a better position to address the
anger of leaders and citizens of countries, including their own, with
the aim of avoiding violence. It is ironic that the US responded
so irrationally to 9/11,
although (at least according to cliché) so many Americans (including
political leaders) visit
their therapist regularly. What do they talk about?
We need a better balance between mind and
body. What a wonderful world it would be if men who are
violent toward their partners talked
to a good therapist about their inner
personal conflicts and the anger they feel toward their partner or
perhaps toward women in general. What
a wonderful world it would be if
the politicians involved in
violent conflicts talked
to a good therapist about their inner
personal conflicts and the anger they feel toward enemy
countries, cultures or "races" - or if they just sat quietly in a room
for a few hours with the leaders of enemy countries and meditated about
their international relationships (or about nothing at all, for that
matter).
Pacifism and liberty
Hormones
are involved in violent behavior at all levels from individual to
global. Consider domestic violence. Because men are generally
physically stronger
than their female partners and children, they are more likely to get
away with violence, if there is no external system in place to prevent
it. This form of violence is the
cradle of sexism, for without it, women and men might have equal social
power. So strategies
to stop this violence belong to the foundations of feminism.
Violence is part
of a definition of slavery. Unjust working conditions only become
slavery when people are forced by violent means to work, or not to
leave. In a world
where domestic violence is not prevented, women can become slaves to
their male partners. The solution is a form of pacifism. A pacifist
will typically argue that
violence - whether in the home, the workplace, or anywhere else - is never justified except in self-defence or in the defence of
weaker participants (provided there is a good chance the
violent strategy will
work).
This
has enormous ramifications for the American concept of liberty. Liberty
is the opposite of slavery. If Americans want liberty, they need
pacifism. Violence not only leads to more violence - it also leads to
restrictions on liberty such as border controls and infringements of
privacy. That is what happened after 9/11, and the ultimate reason was
American militarism in the Arab world, followed by the insane Western
response to 9/11. If people are angry about so-called "intelligence
agencies" (FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA) getting access to private
information
and keeping security files on individuals (as if the US admired
communism and wanted to emulate it!) then there is just one long-term
solution: pacifism. We must address the ultimate cause of the problem.
People versus money
For decades, the main motivation for American military involvement in
Iraq has been money: Blood for oil. That raises the outrageous question
of the value of a human life, in monetary terms.
Billions of dollars are spent
on arms, not to mention the cost of war in human lives. In Iraq and Syria, for example,
if just a small
fraction of that money had been spent on persistent, creative, generous
negotiation, perhaps combined with economic sanctions, many of the
problems could have been solved in advance. If that investment had been
made before the conflict began, or at any time during the conflict, and
the negotiations had continued for as long as it takes (open end!), the
conflict would never would have become as serious as it did, and the US
would not have such an enormous national debt to pay off.
It follows that even if you don't care about human lives, and obviously
some people really don't, war still does not make economic sense. If
you want make money out of other countries, the best way to do it is
peacefully. Of course CEOs in the arms industry are making a lot of
money out of conflicts, which can explain a lot of irrational
hawkishness in politics. But the voters and countries that politicians
represent certainly do not make any money out of conflicts. Instead,
they are presented with the bill, and forced to pay it over many years.
Irrational militarism and the "clash of cultures"
In 2011 and 2012, Russia and China vetoed UN Security Council
resolutions that would have threatened the Syrian government with
sanctions, if the violence against the protestors (opposition) did not
stop. The resolutions had been drafted by western countries and were
perceived by other countries as biased. That was a dramatic failure of
negotiation, and it should have been followed by further negotiations
that delved deeper into the issues behind the vetoes, and how to
resolve them. It was clear at that time (and not merely in retrospect)
that the lives of millions of innocent Syrians depended on the outcome
of these negotiations. Millions! But the UN security council
essentially gave up. Even without the security council, other countries
could have unilaterally promoted quasi-endless negotiation to end the
conflict, which would have been in their own interest (which in a
pacifist viewpoint cannot be separated from everyone's interest - we're
all in this together). Politicians could easily have convinced voters
of the virtues of such a policy.
As a Western person I can only feel shame for the actions of Western
governments. Selling or giving arms to the rebels is no
solution. The Syrian opposition has received various kinds of
support - military, financial, political - from the United States,
Britain and France, which has just promoted the violence. Of
course the Syrian government and its allies have also been doing
outrageous things, but we have to start by taking responsibility for
our own actions. The
only solution is to mediate a ceasefire and a new agreement, and to
keep doing that, again and again and again, until rationality prevails.
Those self-proclaimed "realists" who feel important when they say
"pacifism doesn't work" and then wheel out their "realistic" arguments
should be soundly contradicted. The answer to such arguments should
always be something like "Yes we can" or "If
something is not impossible, it is generally possible". These are
realistic answers, because negotiation is always better than violence.
That is because human lives are always more important than money or
power. We should just ask those "realistic" hawkish "patriots" what is
more important to them - their life or their money. To those who call
for their copatriots to join them in "holy wars" against "evil foes" we
should say this: Of course it is a good thing to love one's country. It
is good that patriots want to save the lives of their fellow citizens
and improve their quality of life. From a pragmatic viewpoint, pacifism
is the best way to achieve that goal in the long term, because as a
rule violence just breeds more violence. So let's all express our love
for our country and copatriots by promoting pacifism.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was nothing short of insane, even from a
militarist viewpoint. Those who appeared repeatedly on our TV screens
at the time with arguments to justify the invasion were quite simply
lying. It was obvious from the start that the invasion would cost a
hundred thousand lives; in fact, it cost a million. Those people died
so that
the US could have control over gulf oil. What could be more scandalous
than that?
No wonder there is so much hatred of the US in the Middle East. The
Islamic State is just one example of that hatred. As a rule, violence
just breeds more violence. That's why we so urgently need pacifism.
Pacifism: General principles
Negotiation is always better than fighting, even if it seems to go on
forever. Take Israel and Palestine for example. The case seems
completely hopeless, and has done so for decades. But that does not
mean the problem is solved by fighting! No matter how hopeless a
situation may become, and no matter how long it drags on, negotiation
is always preferable to violence.
Another fundamental principle of pacifism is that violence should only
be used in self defence, which justifies the existence of armed forces
for that purpose only. Self defence can, by definition, only happen on
or near one's home territory; it is never self defence to lauch and
"pre-emptive" attack against a country that is planning to attack you.
If all countries adhered to that simple principle,
there would be no war. Humans being rather stupid, however, and men
being
victims of their hormones, world peace is not going to break out
anytime soon. Just imagine if the US military came home and restricted
their activities to defending their homeland. What a wonderful world
that would be.
Meanwhile, there is nothing to be lost, and a lot to be
gained, by following the principle of violence only in self defence. It
would mean that all countries (including the USA) would end their
policy of military interference in the conflicts of other countries.
Instead, if they had an interest in the resolution of foreign
conflicts, they would invest creatively in diplomacy and negotiation.
The US "military-industrial complex" costs
taxpayers enormous amounts of money. In return, it is steadily
undermining American security by increasing anti-US anger all over the
world, ISIS being the most extreme example. The "military-industrial
complex" is achieving exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to
achieve. This is over-the-top insanity. The way things are going,
further attacks like 9/11 are likely in coming years. The
only way to reduce the probability of such attacks and improve security
is to apply rational pacifist principles, as outlined in this text.
Most people employed in the
"military-industrial complex" could be doing more useful things, such
as promoting sustainable energy.
The Second World War is often quoted as a case in which pacifism would
not have worked. What if the US has not intervened in the war in
Europe? I don't think this is a strong general argument in favor of
military intervention in the conflicts of other countries. First, the
Second World War was in part caused by the unfair resolution of the
first. If the European powers had had any idea of pacifism,
neither of those two wars would have happened. Versailles was a
profound failure of negotiation. Second, it was not clear in advance
whether the Allied invasion of Nazi Europe would succeed. If it had
not, it would have made matters worse. While the allies were planning
D-Day, the Nazis were working on nuclear weapons. Luckily, they were
too slow. Sometimes, military intervention achieves humanitarian
goals, but usually it does not, and trying to achieve humanitarian
goals by military intervention is generally a very risky business. In
the long term, violence
generally causes more violence.
I am not arguing for a pure form of pacifism in which no form of
violence is morally justified. If I am attacked while walking down the
street, or if my children are attacked, I may respond with violence, if
I believe I can effectively protect myself or my children in this way,
just as a country may defend itself with violence. But that does not
mean I should carry a gun. Pacifism must be pragmatic. We must always
think of the consequences of our actions, and avoid the temptation of
being too idealistic. The aim is not a pacifist utopia, but a world in
which people regard human rights as our highest good and for that
reason reject violence in most cases.
The implications are clear: disarm and dismantle the "military
industrial complex", which obviously wields undemocratic power.
Negotiate global limits on international arms trading, just as limits
have been negotiated for nuclear weapons. Don't give up,
because nothing could be important. Don't stop talking about it just
because people say it is "unrealistic". For decades before the Berlin
wall came down, Western Germans were publicly dreaming of
reunification, even though it seemed completely impossible, and then
suddenly it happened. Peaceful resolutions to international conflicts
are always possible if people have the courage and persistence to keep
talking about them. We should never stop envisaging a world without
arms trading and military interventions, just as we also
envisage
world without poverty or the death penalty.
Of course it is necessary to stop selling arms to terrorists and their supporters. But most countries involved in current international conflicts,
including the US, have facilitated arms sales to terrorists. A more
important problem is the anger and violence that breeds terrorism in
the first place. The solution is to suppress the entire global arms
industry. Not manufacturing arms and not contributing to foreign
conflicts will
not only save millions of lives - it will also save billions
(trillions?) of dollars in public money. We should be investing that
money in peace studies, diplomacy, cultural exchange, intercultural
communication, medical and humanitarian aid to war zones, development
to reduce or eliminate poverty, sustainable energy to slow climate
change.
Never give up. Never accept violence as an acceptable means of
resolving conflict.
Courage conquers fear, but violence creates it. If you care about
children, the future is more important than the past, planning with
foresight is more important than tradition, and long-term solutions are
better than short-term fixes. Pacifism is about the future and the
world that our grandchildren will experience after we die. If you care
about that, never stop negotiating. That's it, really.
The opinions expressed on
this page are the
authors' personal
opinions.
Suggestions for improving or extending the content are
welcome at parncutt@gmx.at.
Back to Richard Parncutt's homepage
