>From: DavidMcR at aol.com
>Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:11:00 EDT
>
> These are preliminary notes and I certainly welcome responses. It is a
>draft of an article for the Nonviolent Activist of WRL. David
>
> Is there a Nonviolent Solution to the World Trade Center Bombing?
>
> That is, of course, a shorthand title for "and the Pentagon, and a dozen
>other acts of terrorism directed against the US". This is my thinking - I do
>not expect it will be shared by all readers of NVA.
>
> There are times when I believe nonviolence is not politically relevant -
>which doesn't mean I think one should abandon it for violence, but recognize
>that there are moments in history when the pacifist position is a "witness"
>within history. It is prophetic, it should not be abandoned. Human progress
>owes a great deal to people who acted in the present on the basis of a utopia
>they believed in but which was not immediately possible.
>
> World War I, the "Great War", was a case where the radical position of
>the pacifists, socialists, and anarchists was politically important but
>crushed by the forces of nationalism (an ideology which in the 19th and 20th
>century had acquired more power than the Church). Looking back, there are few
>historians who would argue it was a war worth fighting, since it so directly
>led to the rise of totalitarian ideologies and World War II. Better the
>Kaiser had won. The fact that the radicals failed to persuade the working
>class of all of Europe to call a General Strike against the war didn't mean
>they were not politically on target. Eugene V. Debs and the Socialist Party,
>Norman Thomas, Evan Thomas, Roger Baldwin, A.J. Muste, are among those
>politically active at that time and fervent in their opposition to the war.
>
> World War II was a case where the pacifist position was not relevant.
>Once the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and the Germans joined in declaring
>war on the United States, the war was a fact.
> Pacifists could go to prison. They could wait out the war. But protesting
>the war was difficult, trying to disrupt it impossible, because given a
>choice between the Axis and the Allies the choice was clear. When all the
>evils of the US were added up - capitalism, racism, imperialism (at that time
>even more true of Great Britain) - the civil society of the West at least
>gave a chance to continue the struggle. It was never the "Light versus
>Darkness" struggle it was portrayed at the time, but it was a light grey
>against a very much darker one. (The one point where I think pacifists had an
>insight of crucial political importance was the danger of the "unconditional
>surrender" ultimatum - this meant war to the bitter end and prevented any
>cracks from appearing within the ruling elites in Germany and Japan.
>Unfortunately, this practical insight was not heeded - wars, once under way,
>have an illogic all their own).
>
> The Korean War is always "skipped" when we discuss wars. The lack of
>opposition to that war flowed from the profoundly totalitarian
>"anti-Communist" miasma that held this country in its grip (and, because it
>was so widely accepted, was not even seen as repressive except by handful of
>radicals who tried to resist the war). The full history of the devastating
>violence of that war, and the degree such violence helped create the odd
>regime in North Korea, needs to be more fully explored.
>
> The Vietnam War was categorically wrong. This was not Pearl Harbor where
>the nation had been attacked, rather it was from the beginning a war of
>aggression carried out by the ruling class of the United States against the
>people of Vietnam. No one attacked us - we attacked them. Within two or three
>years after that war began, opposition to it became significant. Not merely
>academic opposition, but calls for troops to desert, efforts to block
>munitions shipments, etc. There was, it is true, a bitter debate within the
>pacifist movement over whether to call for a cease fire or to call for
>unconditional withdrawal - in the end the clear majority of the pacifist
>movement came down for unconditional withdrawal, a position the War Resisters
>League had laid out in a position paper in 1964 or 1965. (?)
>
> This current "war" is different from all the others. We have not been
>attacked by a State but by terrorists without a State. Bush has ordered the
>bombing of Afghanistan, but we were not attacked by Afghanistan. In view of
>the large number of Saudi Arabians who make up the followers of Osama Bin
>Laden (assuming for the moment he is guilty) it might make more sense to
>attack Saudi Arabia. The events of September 11th have less the character of
>war than of mass murder. Pacifists need to accept that fact. It doesn't
>matter that the US has killed far more people, it doesn't matter that the
>Taliban is "blow back" from our support for the Islamic guerillas in
>Afghanistan, it doesn't matter that what set Bin Laden off was the US
>stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War - all those things,
>and many others as well, are true. But none of them excuse the criminal act
>of murdering of over 5,000 people in a virtual instant on September 11th.
>
> What, then, is a possible response? Unlike the Vietnam War, we have been
>attacked. Most troubling, no one has stepped forward and claimed credit. Nor
>were any demands advanced. It was a sudden inexplicable act of terror that
>shocked the nation. But what can be done? The answer the American government
>has chosen is, I believe, less "politically sensible" than anything pacifists
>might put forth. Already as of this writing the US attacks have killed UN
>workers who were in Afghanistan to help clear it of mines - God knows how
>many Afghan civilians have died. It is criminal nonsense for our leaders to
>tell us all our bombs are precise in their targeting.
>
> Already there have been deadly riots on the West Bank, where Palestinian
>police have shot dead a number of protesters. The government of Pakistan is
>being rocked by demonstrations. The soil for new terrorism is being watered
>and fertilized with each bomb dropped. There is now talk of extending the
>war, not only in duration, but to other countries. While the Administration
>has backed off the Orwellian terms of "Operation Infinite Justice" and talk
>of a "crusade", there are key people around Bush who want to use t his
>occasion to "take out" Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc.
>
> We must, of course, protest this course of action. War Resisters League
>has already played an important role in calling peace groups together, and in
>joining other groups - AFSC, FOR, etc. - in initiating demonstrations across
>the country. But we must do much more than say "Not in Our Name" or "Our
>Grief Is Not A Cry For Revenge". People ask us "what is the answer", and it
>is not an answer to say "no war". They want to know what we will do about
>those who planned the murders of September 11 - to say those directly
>involved died in the attacks does not wash as an answer. Nor is it an answer
>to say we must pursue a foreign policy of peace and justice. The terrorists
>are real, they hate us - it doesn't matter how justified their hatred, I
>state a fact. And they hate not just the Pentagon or the Corporate Elite -
>they hate you, they hate me, their cause is that of a reactionary, deeply
>religious, nearly fascist hatred of all things Western.
>
> The answer which I believe has political merit - which is more than
>simply a witness against endless terror, whether by our State or the
>individuals involved in the terrorist networks - is to call for the arrest of
>whoever is responsible and their trial by international legal authorities.
>
> Yes, those who criticize the UN, or any existing international court
>structure as being stacked in the favor of the US are right. Yes, those who
>say our own criminal justice system is profoundly flawed are correct. But for
>all the errors of our justice system, it is a far better alternative to war.
> The system of international law is extremely weak and ill-defined. We are
>still a world of nation states, nowhere more than where our own country is
>concerned, with the eagerness of the ruling elite to brush aside
>international treaties we have signed.
>
> Yet, while the Nuernberg Tribunals were "the justice of the victors",
>pacifists have accepted those Tribunals as the basis for many of our own
>actions. Yes, the court at the Hague is flawed in having placed Milosevic
>under arrest and not also indicted Clinton and Blair for their authorization
>of the deliberate, targeted attacks on civilian during the Balkan conflict.
>But no troops were sent in to arrest Milosevic - he was turned over by
>authorities in Serbia. Under pressure, yes. But I suspect there are few who
>don't feel he should be brought to trial.
>
> So our political answer is that we need to call for international justice
>for whoever was responsible for organizing the September 11th events. We
>categorically reject the effort by Bush to say there is "clear evidence"
>Osama Bin Laden is guilty - we want to see that evidence. We want Congress to
>see it. We want it published. It is not enough that the British Prime
>Minister Tony Blair vouch for it - his record of accuracy on such matters is
>very weak.
>
> We cannot dodge this issue of working toward some system of international
>law and justice and still hope to have any political role in this situation.
>The law, so often used against us, is our weapon against Bush, an
>illegitimate President waging an illegal war. Let us demand that Congress
>debate the issue of peace and war rather than once more giving to the
>Executive the right to launch an endless "crusade". Let us demand that our
>nation ask for international legal actions against the guilty. In a sense, we
>are saying "send in the lawyers, not the troops". Is this imperfect? Yes. The
>current sanctions against Iraq and the persistent bombing of Iraq by Britain
>and the US were originally based on decisions that had, at one time, some
>tentative approval by the UN. But opponents of the UN overlook the fact that
>the UN support has long since vanished, and both the sanctions and the
>bombing have been in clear violation of international law.
>
> Yes, it is true, as Marx wrote, that the State is the "Executive
>Committee of the ruling class" - but sometimes it can surprise us, as when it
>sent most of the Nixon cabinet to prison. Would I call the cops if someone
>was setting fire to my building? Yes. For all the flaws of police and courts,
>it is better to call in the police than to resort to organizing a lynch mob.
>And that - a lynch mob - is what Bush is offering us, and the world at this
>moment.
>