Previous editorials

Current editorial

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017

December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016 (supplement)

December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015

December supplement
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014

December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013

December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012

December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011

December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010

December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009

December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008

December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007

December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006

December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005

December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004

December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
July 200
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000

16 Ravensdene Park,
Belfast BT6 0DA,
Northern Ireland.
Tel: 028 9064 7106
Fax: 028 9064 7106


What's new

Nonviolent News supplement January 2021

Nonviolent News December 2020

Editorials: Antimilitarism, nature and nurture

Eco-Awareness with Larry Speight: The Green New Deal

Readings in Nonviolence: Touching on textiles – an interview with Roberta Bacic

Billy King: Rites Again


These are regular editorials produced alongside the corresponding issues on Nonviolent News.

Number 285: December 2020

[Return to related issue of Nonviolence News]

The term ‘antimilitarism’ is not well understood, even in many peace circles, and there may be a simple lack of knowledge about what it entails through unfamiliarity with the term. Being opposed to armies and military thinking is, of course, not just the preserve of those who believe in nonviolence but in our context we are talking about the replacement of armies, highly weaponised and trained bodies of men – and some women - with nonviolent alternatives.

This is where the nonviolent activist is accused of being idealistic and unrealistic; who will defend us against attack? But, who is going to attack us? This is a serious question. And if they did want to attack us, what means would they use? All the military might of the USA did not defend it one iota against the attack of 9/11. And the 9/11 attack was a result of that US military might being exerted around the world, not that anything could have justified the suicide and murder attack on the Twin Towers and elsewhere.

Ireland has never had conscription. Nationalist campaigning during the First World War saw off the possibility of conscription and it was neither introduced then nor in the Second World War during which the Free State remained neutral. The fact that there has never been conscription here has tempered the response to armies, and meant that what antimilitarism has developed has been different to many other countries. However conscription is now regarded as inefficient by most military states since what they want is loyal, obeisant, highly trained soldiers who will kill on command rather than reluctant recruits.

However antimilitarism is only a starting point, or possibly not even a starting point but a part of a nonviolent identity. Those who believe in peace through nonviolence advocate many positive alternatives; social defence (a concept that builds on concrete experiences of mass peaceful/nonviolent action, much of it in authoritarian societies, and extends beyond organised state and civilian action in order to oppose any invasion or coup, and protect the positive aspects of society), mechanisms for conflict solving through mediation and early intervention, working for world justice, and so on. Some of the more positive roles played by armies currently could be fulfilled by unarmed crisis response and intervention teams; in this context, being armed is irrelevant.

Militarism promotes militarism; we saw that in the Cold war and we see it today in Russian-Western European relations. Militarism robs countries of money and, if the military are actually used, causes massive death and destruction. Militarism requires the arms trade, arguably the most corrupt, death-dealing industry in the world. Arms and arms races are again stealing from the poor and lining the pockets of the rich.

We can be proud to proclaim ourselves antimilitarists, not in some negative way but as part of what we seek to build in a peaceful future. Antimilitarism is part of what we are or should be. It may not be the first part of our identity that we proclaim, given that it can seem negative until we explain more, but neither should it be the last.

Nature and nurture
Nature can get on very well without homo sapiens – it would be much better off in fact - but homo sapiens cannot get on without nature, of which we are a part. This year has been a salutory lesson in the dangers of not giving nature its space. And the next major health crisis might come, not from China, but from a massive pig farm in the USA or Northern Ireland, or some other animal-exploitative venture almost anywhere in the world. Humans are still asking for trouble through how we treat flora and fauna. And this is independent of global heating issues

But it is the end of the year, a year not quite like any other. 2021 will bear hope that we can get back to a new normal. If the new normal is like the old normal then again we are asking for trouble in the future.

Perhaps the experience of 2020 has taught us some things; these may or may not be forgotten fast but we can but hope that some remembrance remains. One point is how much we depend on others, not just health workers but also supermarket shelf stackers and those working in rubbish collection and recycling, for example (in fact nearly everyone). We depend on others and they should have the respect – and monetary rewards – that go with that.

It is to be hoped that 2020 has also given us a new appreciation of nature in all its forms. Whether it is contemplating insects in a back yard or garden, the trees, shrubs and birds in a park, or the multiplicity of flora and fauna in the countryside, we can be bouyed and bounced by the wonders of nature.

In fact without the nurturing of nature we may find it difficult to find an even keel in life. There are many wonders in the human world and human culture, and whatever our cultural tastes there are great things to be appreciated. But a sunrise, sunset or swirling bird can take us into ecstasy – standing outside of ourselves – in a way which unites us to our world in an amazing way. Even growing some seeds in a window box or garden can be an occasion of wonder.

So here is to our awareness and enjoyment of nature in the coming year. May we extend our knowledge and appreciation both for our own sakes and for what we can do to nurture nature in return for its nurturing of us.

- - - - -

Larry Speight brings us his monthly column –

The Green New Deal

This year will probably be remembered more than any other so far this century for three reasons. One is Covid-19 which swept across the world in a matter of weeks upending the lives of the entire human population causing anxiety and heartache for millions. It was the year when US president Donald Trump lost his bid to serve another four years in office. Some will rate him as just another president, memorable because he was uncouth and had an unhealthy level of narcissism. Aside from these traits and his environmental vandalism, racism and misogyny the greatest harm he did was to normalise the disposition many people have to ignore material facts and hold things to be true on the simple basis that they wish they were.

Thus in spite of the Washington Post documenting 20,055 “false and misleading claims” Trump made as president up until the 9 July, his taking the country out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, the World Health Organisation and rolling back 100 key environmental regulations, most of which safeguarded human health, 73 million people voted for him in the belief that he had served the country well. The third reason 2020 will likely be considered a pivotal year is because it could very well be the one in which environmental meltdown could no longer be avoided because the governments of key economies duped themselves into thinking that their Green New Deal would heal the ailing biosphere and as a consequence avert the enormous amount of human suffering and mayhem that will otherwise occur.

The Green New Deal is modelled on the economic and legislative measures US President Roosevelt put in place between 1933 and 1939 in response to the Great Depression, a period of economic downturn which affected most countries during this time. The legislation, use of presidential executive orders and massive government spending on public works were designed to provide relief to the unemployed and needy, reignite the economy and reform the financial system in order to prevent another economic depression occurring ever again. The actions were dubbed the New Deal which most historians regard a success and certainly the electorate did as the Democratic Party, of which Roosevelt was a member, held the presidency for seven of the nine presidential terms from 1933 to 1969.

On the basis of its success governments feel that a Green New Deal will address the environmental crisis and in particular what is widely called the climate change emergency. This, as readers probably know, is that global warming gas emissions are on a trajectory to raise the temperature of the climate above 1.5 C as against pre-industrial levels before the close of this decade which if not averted will have catastrophic consequences for humankind and the bio-community. These are consequences that will last longer than the hitherto lifespan of humankind.

It is a relief to know that an increasing number of governments acknowledge the threat to global civilization arising from the harm we are doing to the biosphere. The fatal flaw in their critique is that they see the threat to humanity arising from mainly one source, global warming. On the basis of this their solution, it would be more accurate to say aspiration, is to all but eliminate the emission of the gasses that cause it, namely CO2 and methane. If successful, and it is a marathon task, this won’t prevent the biosphere from malfunctioning as per pre-industrial times and civilization from collapsing. New Green Deals also need to take account of the loss of biodiversity, which is of such severity it is called ‘the sixth extinction’, the loss of fresh water supplies through pollution and mismanagement, and the loss of soil fertility, to mention just three environmental problems that have a detrimental impact on human wellbeing.

As well as radically reducing our emission of global warming gasses we must, if Green New Deals are to achieve what they are meant to, undertake a profound cultural change that warrants been called revolutionary. The essential undertaking is that we move from our linear economy to a circular one and cease to equate a meaningful life with ‘having’ as opposed to ‘being’. In a few words our linear economy is one in which we transform nonhuman nature into sterile land, dead bodies of water and mountains of toxic waste. A circular economy mimics the natural world in which something which has served its purpose becomes a resource, a nutrient or shelter for another living thing. Think of the leaves trees shed.

The Green New Deal recently announced by the British prime minister in a ten-point plan signifies an awakening but is imbedded in the magical belief of unlimited economic growth on a planet of clearly defined dimensions and a highly sensitized, delicately balanced and thoroughly integrated biosphere. The world does not need New Green Deals of the kind put forward by the UK government but rather an economic plan that accounts for the multi-dimensional nature of the environmental crisis, addresses gross economic inequality and is rooted in the realism that we live on a finite planet.

Such a well thought-out and nuanced plan won’t, however, be enough. The effort to persuade people to abide by the Covid-19 health guidelines and the failure of the US Democratic Party and other groups to demystify Trump highlight the need for a well thought-out public education programme to persuade people of the necessity for a paradigm change in regard to the organisation of living. This is one that challenges wishful thinking, the prevailing concept of the good life, and cultivates the view that nonhuman life has intrinsic value.

Copyright INNATE 2021