Large-scale Nonviolence

[lunamoth]

Reading the Conscientious Objector thread and the Insane Israel thread back-to-back makes me wonder about nonviolent alternatives to global problems. OK, it's pie-in-the-sky to imagine this in response to a country run amuck:

The dictator-in-charge and his/her army is looting his/her country and committing atrocities against his/her own people. S/He is collecting the dreaded weapons of mass destruction and threatening to her/his neighbors. The world is Alarmed.

How do we use nonviolence to change this situation?

If the UN had a better functioning entity and the world had a chance to unite in opposition, could there have been a nonviolent response i Iraq?

Silly me, imagining every available man, woman and child massing on the borders of Iraq and singing Let There Be Peace on Earth. Or at least a massive united front of world opposition: we won't play with you if you can't be nice.

OK, so, if there are no hopeless dreamers and idealistic optimists, maybe there would never be alternatives to war.

Actually, I am interested in anyone's ideas about nonviolence to address these large-scale conflicts.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, lunamoth!

What you present is a very realistic scenario. How can one, or even a dedicated group, rationally oppose force of arms?

Which is why I have long held that peace is maintained by strength of force.

Perhaps it is old-fashioned, out dated and paternalistic. But I see no realistic alternative.

It is only when you have the ability to defend yourself that you can have the luxury of peace.

Within that luxury of peace, alternatives to violence can be used. In the grand sense, this is called diplomacy.

This is all on the national and global level.

At the level of the individual, I would think it wise to be capable of defending yourself, but walking through life in such a manner as to create as little animosity and ill will as possible.

Stated another way comes back to what I was taught "turn the other cheek" really means: do not start any hateful matter, but if someone else starts a hateful matter with you, you have the right (concerning family, obligation) to defend yourself.

This has always seemed wise to me.

[lunamoth]

Hi Juantoo3, thank you for your response!

123 said: "What you present is a very realistic scenario. How can one, or even a dedicated group, rationally oppose force of arms?
Which is why I have long held that peace is maintained by strength of force.

Perhaps it is old-fashioned, out dated and paternalistic. But I see no realistic alternative."

Luna: In reverse order, I don't see what is paternalistic about self-defense by use of force. As a woman, I'm pretty sure I would fight tooth and nail if my children, my family, were threatened. I like to think that would include being a soldier if needed, but I thought differently when I was younger and actually eligible for active service. "All's Quiet on the Western Front" really did me in.

I don't think it is outdated. Until mechanisms for peaceful diplomacy are in place, tested, and functioning, it would be suicide to drop arms.

Hmmm, old-fashioned. As in the old way of doing things. Yes, we have been doing things this way for a long long time. New thinking seems to be needed. But, I would have to bet that as long as humans are humans we will need to maintain some type of arms to put teeth into civil laws, whether they are local, national, or global.


123 said: "It is only when you have the ability to defend yourself that you can have the luxury of peace.
Within that luxury of peace, alternatives to violence can be used. In the grand sense, this is called diplomacy."

Luna: I agree with you here, too. In fact, I agree with all of your post. I'm just wondering how we can get to the point where we rely more on cooperation & diplomacy between nations and less on competition and war. This is where it is tempting to want some kind of global governance where there is trust and some agreement about what is tolerable and what is intolerable in rogue nations.

A final note is that I think the root of much of the world's problem is fear. Fear of losing what you've got, fear of the unknown, fear of "the other." One way I can think of to reduce fear is to lessen our ignorance about other people, other cultures, other religions. Just a thought.

Thanks again.

[StrangeQuark]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Silly me, imagining every available man, woman and child massing on the borders of Iraq and singing Let There Be Peace on Earth. Or at least a massive united front of world opposition: we won't play with you if you can't be nice.

OK, so, if there are no hopeless dreamers and idealistic optimists, maybe there would never be alternatives to war.

You may have no idea how appealing this is to me. Silly me, too!

It's just too bad that not enough people are willing to try, for one, and many people could care less is we go to war or not. Worse, there are those who simply want to fight. Oh, well.

[StrangeQuark]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

A final note is that I think the root of much of the world's problem is fear. Fear of losing what you've got, fear of the unknown, fear of "the other." One way I can think of to reduce fear is to lessen our ignorance about other people, other cultures, other religions. Just a thought.

A good thought if I ever heard one. That's one of the reasons I'm attracted this forum.

[suanni]

Seems like the world holds a very short memory.

Diplomacy was used in South Africa some years ago. World trade ceased there in the hopes of stopping the troubles. The non-violent diplomacy did very little (well, seems to me it did very little). Would sending troops in have ended Apartheid sooner? Or was the diplomatic approach the correct way?

There never seems to be a straight forward answer.
I maybe a woman but I know when a smack in the mouth is required more than diplomacy or turning the other cheek. You know inside when you're threatened and when a certain tactic would work and that goes for your loved ones. Yes, I would also fight tooth and nail for my kith and kin. However when it comes down to global situations there is never a straight forward approach. Whilst I criticise what the troops have done, I have not criticised them being there in Iraq, for the purpose for what they were sent to do. I may question the motives behind why the troops were sent there to begin with but not for deposing Hussein and his diabolical army.
I do know one thing, I would never like to be a political leader or a high ranking politican involved in world diplomatic affairs or home secretary. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I often wonder what would happen if the majority, i.e. Mr & Mrs. Joe Bloggs of any nationality stood up and said enough is enough. Would we need fear to establish order? Why do we need to be led by the nose by high ranking politicans?