Category Archives: Editorials

Only the ‘Editorials’ from 2021 onwards are accessible here. For older Editorials please click on the “Go to our pre-2021 Archive Website’ tag on the right of this page.

Editorials: Racism, Nonviolence

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , , , , ,

Racing against racism

Northern Ireland seems to have moved from having sectarian disturbances in the summer to racist attacks and pogroms. These have now happened three years in a row. It is no accident given that sectarianism and racism are close relations and the North has traditions of violence; scapegoating and othering is a habit that dies hard, and one that is used by some people, particularly on the political right, to create unrest and try to create support for their vicious creeds. Sectarian attacks have decreased and racist attacks have escalated. Nor is the Republic immune from right wing racist thuggery, that is also clear from previous rioting, attacks, and the fear felt by people who are recognisably ‘other’ than the majority ‘white’ – pink – population.

It is clear from the most recent racist violence in the North that racists were and are primed ready to use any excuse deemed suitable to trigger violence and a pogrom against people from a minority ethnic background. Lists of addresses occupied by migrants had been already circulated over some months when the incident happened involving an attack by a Sudanese man, and we don’t know his motivation or situation regarding mental health. While the violence and rioting was not orchestrated by loyalist paramilitaries there were certainly loyalists involved, and the paramilitaries did nothing to stop it. However clearly many of those involved in the rioting and attacks on black and coloured people were very young and for some there was undoubtedly the thrill of engaging in arson and physical violence, so-called ‘recreational violence’.

One of the ironies involved, apart from in some cases people thrashing their own area (and a knock on effect on the North’s current reputation, such as it is), is that Northern Ireland has a much lower level of migrants living in the jurisdiction than either the Republic or Britain. Northern Ireland has a total of around 6% migrants, half of whom have ‘white’ skin, so there is only 3% black or coloured residents in the North. The Republic has 20% of its people born elsewhere. In the UK as a whole the proportion of migrants is around 17% though more than double that in London and ethnic minorities are much longer established in Britain than either part of Ireland with a much higher proportion of ethnic minority citizens born in the state. So Northern Ireland is the region of the UK with by far the lowest number of migrants but the highest level of pogrom-type violence, a factor emanating from its sectarian history.

Brendan McNally, the brother of murder victim Natalie McNally (killed along with her unborn baby in a deviously planned attack by her erstwhile partner, a white native of Northern Ireland) has made a pertinent point on social media: he slammed “patriots” following the racist attacks and questioned where they were when his sister was killed. He said “…the murder of women by a current or former partner is a grave and recurring phenomenon in our society…almost half of the murders in Northern Ireland in recent years have a domestic abuse motivation. I didn’t see much of the same angry outcry and mobilisation from so called ‘patriots’ then, using the toxic mudslide of distortion and misinformation of their social media platforms. I wonder what the difference is?”

It is no accident that racist rioting tends to happen in working class areas which in general receive a raw deal from the state. This is true North or South of the border. The lack of positive challenges and involvement through youth centres or detached youth work, the lack of decent job prospects, the poor level of education for many (and particularly so for working class Protestant males) in the North, are all factors in creating a culture of disenchantment which can be turned into violence. That is not an excuse for violence but it is certainly a contributory cause.

It is also noticeable that, while racism and racist attacks can be found anywhere on the island of Ireland, the racist violence and pogroms of the last few years in the North have substantially been in Protestant areas. There are partly ideological and historical reasons for this. Nationalism and republicanism are, in theory at least, inclusive even if that was not the case for violent republicanism in the Troubles; if you are here you are part, or potentially part, of the Irish nation. Some community groups of all varieties pride themselves on working hard to be welcoming and inclusive. However unionism and loyalism tend to more exclusive, if you are not with us you are against us, and that can spill over into racism. And, again, largely for historical reasons, PUL/Protestant Unionist Loyalist politics tends to be to the right of CNR/Catholic Nationalist Republican politics, and this is another contributory factor. But none of these factors have operated in racist violence in the Republic.

Migration is a natural phenomenon. Human migration has been happening since before the emergence of so-called homo sapiens. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Migration_swallow.pdf Europe and the rich world needs migration because of its low birth rates. We are not disputing that some regulation is necessary but scapegoating and penalising asylum seekers leaving impossible situations and migrants trying to build better lives for themselves is a cruel aspect of modern life. And rich countries have only a small fraction of the asylum seekers of the world.

The race against racism is to establish the right of everyone here to be respected, to contribute to society, and be free of fear, and to do so before new patterns of racism become totally established (e.g. pogroms when a migrant is perceived to have done a violent act). Unfortunately with three successive years of racist violence taking place in the North, and the link with sectarianism, it is possible that the pattern is already established. This creates issues for anti-racist civil society but in the recent racist violence in the North many rose to the challenge; Kate Laverty’s beautiful piece on support for those threatened by racist violence appears in her column in this issue.

Nonviolence, 1, 2, 3

Nonviolence is a multifaceted concept and practice. Like any approach to life it has weaknesses as well as strengths but for both pragmatic and moral reasons it is necessary; the pragmatic reasons include ensuring the survival of humankind, and assisting successful and less painful outcomes to conflict. There certainly is power that grows out of the barrel of a gun (weapons of all kinds) but that can take us back to a situation far worse than the law of the jungle, and humanity has perpetrated atrocities that no animal in the jungle would engage in. We are in a situation where pressing a few buttons and inputting a few codes and life as we know it would disappear. As it is, life for all of us will be transformed by global heating and the dislocation and violence arising from that.

People sometimes have the notion that nonviolence only works in ‘liberal’ societies where such action is tolerated. This is certainly not so as Chenoweth and Stephan’s empirical research clearly shows. Depending on the situation, however, the time frame for nonviolence working may be different to violence, and there is nothing to guarantee success in life, but it is as good as it gets for results.

It may depend partly on our temperament, it may depend on our sense of justice, and it may depend on the circumstances we find ourselves; we can be involved in nonviolent action as first, second or third parties. We may work only in one of these categories, we may be involved in all three in relation to different issues, but there is a distinction and a tension between being involved in third party action on an issue and the other two.

First party action is where ‘I’ or ‘we’ (an individual, a family, a group, an organisation or a society or country) struggle for justice and equality. The civil rights movement in the USA or Northern Ireland in the 1960s would have been partly ‘first party’ action in that the people – black people and Catholics respectively – affected by injustice were struggling for their own liberation – assisted by others. These ‘others’ were committed to justice for all and involved in ‘second party’ solidarity. If we are directly affected by an issue or situation it is clearly in our interests to deal with it – but it may also be in the interests of the whole society, and inimical to anyone believing in justice. Many of those who campaign for just treatment for people with a particular debilitating life condition are likely to be the family and friends of those in that situation; they may straddle the line between first and second party activists.

We may be so done down by powerful injustice that we cannot stand up for ourselves. We may be bought off with bread and circuses, or by propaganda. But once we become conscientised on an issue we are likely going to stand up for ourselves. The level or oppression or apathy may determine what we can do for ourselves. But second party supporters may be of great assistance; this was the case with ending apartheid in South Africa when the issue became a global one with ramifications in South Africa itself which led to the possibility of change.

There are a million and one possibilities in second party, solidarity, action. We may get involved in support because we identify with a particular issue or struggle. Many in Ireland have become involved in solidarity with Palestine because they see clear injustice in the denial of a state and economic, political and military oppression; awareness of the history of Ireland may cause clear identification with the Palestinian cause. Of course there are Palestinians in Ireland involved in action for justice for Palestine and for them it is ‘first party’ action.

We may also get involved in second party action because of our human commitment to justice, peace and/or global sustainability. This general commitment then takes us towards more specific solidarity work. However green activism can also straggle first and second party action since ecological issues affect us all. The world is living on borrowed time in so many ways, in relation to violence, to climate change, and to overuse of resources.

Third party intervention is somewhat different in that our commitment to justice and peace brings us to work to bring different parties together to resolve their differences or to prevent further injustice or violence. As a mediator or conciliator our attention may be to a specific issue or more generalised conflict, and, as with all such situations, the ‘presenting issue’ (what is initially raised) may not be the major underlying concern or only one of many. The involvement of a third party might just be for a limited period such as a mediation process that the parties agree to undertake. A conciliation process may also be for a limited time, assisting communication and understanding between parties in a crisis – or it may be for a much longer time period as with the work of Quaker House in Belfast over a couple of decades in trying to develop understanding and interaction between sides in the North and more widely those involved.

The problem for third party intervention, which can include monitoring of one form or another as well as mediation and conciliation, is how ‘neutral’ or ’impartial’ is it to be? If you became directly involved in solidarity with one party in a conflict you would certainly no longer be considered impartial and your services would almost automatically be rejected by the other party or parties. But while you may privately be totally sympathetic to one party in a conflict your public manner demands that your involvement does not treat the sides differently. This does not preclude a mediator working with one party to help prepare their involvement when they are too weak or unprepared to do so. The term ‘balanced partiality’ is perhaps applicable here, at least to some extent.

The third party mediator’s commitment to justice means that they will not tolerate a fundamentally unjust agreement between the parties. But the agreement is fundamentally for the parties themselves to make and it may be a good or a poor agreement – a mediator will have pushed to make it an agreement which not only covers the issue but is likely to hold and be implemented.

The third party role is more constrained than that of the first or second parties. It is not value-less, it is value-able. INNATE has been involved recently in training monitors for situations of racial tension in Northern Ireland (and for decades in promoting monitoring concerning situations of political tension). Those involved are certainly not engaging because they are neutral between racism and anti-racism, they are certainly anti-racist, but, if deployed, they would equally ‘call out’ inappropriate by action by police, anti-migrant protesters or anti-racist protesters.

First, second and third party activism can all be part of nonviolence. Where you involve yourself may depend on your temperament, your politics and worldview, and the circumstances you find yourself in. All are needed. There are however boundaries, particularly between third party intervention and the other two which we need to be aware of and, where possible, respect. Of course it is possible that someone involved in third party intervention feels the need to jump to involvement in direct support on an issue, second party intervention, but they are then likely to forfeit the right and the possibility of continuing as a third party actor in the situation. While majoring on second and first party action, INNATE is involved in promoting the possibilities of nonviolence through all three approaches which can at times be a difficult balancing act – but all are appropriate responses depending on the situation.

And the situations which we face in life range from the interpersonal, the local and community, the regional, national and international. We may not personally face the issue of mediating between Iran and the USA but we do face different levels of conflict in our life. And we might be primarily a mediator or conciliator with family and friends while being a first or second party activist at a national or international level. We can occupy different spaces. But we do well to remember that old adage “The personal is political’ in all that we do and are.

Nonviolence and 1, 2, 3 modes of intervention. You choose.

Editorial: Perseverance for justice, peace and sustainability

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

There are different ways of ‘seeing’ history – as linear, circular, a combination of these, or more scattered or random – and you can take your pick. The ‘progress’ of humanity is sometimes much trumpeted and there have undoubtedly been huge advances in technology which benefit humanity – and huge advances in technology which has the opposite effect. There have also been great advances in human rights while there have been advances in systems to control and corral citizens.

There have been advances made in the rights of women through feminism and in relation to sexual abuse but then along comes the negative-masculinist manosphere, and even apart from that a shockingly low number of rapes end in a court case and guilty verdict. It is not that to every action (change) there is an equal and opposite reaction but there is certainly a reaction and sometimes that reaction takes things backwards – as we have seen in relation to human rights in the USA. The world of the 21st century is a complex place; the world has always been complex but the current polarities are something new or different to those pertaining previously.

The impunity with which a superpower can act is amazing, and it was always thus – think of Britain imposing opium dealing on China in the 19th century. Today the USA can attack, kidnap, kill, bomb, and conduct war with no international legal backing or moral justification and when ‘the west’ does not actively participate it is a matter of a few countries doing or saying something minor but there are no effective international protests or sanctions.

And a state favoured by ‘the west’, Israel, can destroy the entire territory of a whole people, Gaza Palestinians, and slaughter indiscriminately and there are no repercussions; even piracy and kidnap in international waters of citizens from many countries produces a relatively mild reaction from governments. The Irish government response to Israeli kidnapping in international waters in recent weeks and subsequent ill treatment of Irish citizens has been limited to dusting off a limited Occupied Territories Bill which should have become law years ago. And in an autocratic state like Russia, upwards of half a million deaths is considered an acceptable price to pay for a leader who tries to save face after the massive blunder of invading Ukraine.

“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle” said Martin Luther King.

We – peace, political and social change activists and other – are in for a long haul. Sometimes a struggle is to retain rights which risk being lost as leaders and states try to find new ways to control their people. And even where there is at least a concept of democracy there can be a failure to deliver because vested interests and tribal (in a wide sense) loyalties prevent effective change – think of Northern Ireland.

We can only do what we can do; sometimes that may seem pathetically small, as in relation to the need for green policies and practice to prevent further catastrophic climate heating. But one and one and one do eventually make a million, as in Pete Seeger’s song – “One man’s hands can’t tear a prison down / Two men’s hands can’t tear a prison down / But if two and two and fifty make a million / We’ll see that day come round / We’ll see that day come round.”

There is a cyclical element to political movements, not a simple ‘one decade down, next one up’ kind of thing but something more complex. It is not a matter of holding off on activism until the going is easier because then things are ‘never’ going to change. The activism of a couple of people in getting something going, or keeping something going in adverse times, may be more important in an eventual achievement than a thousand people later on when a change movement is on a roll. (For this see e.g. Bill Moyer’s ‘Movement Action Plan’, word search and https://innatenonviolence.org/workshops/strategising.shtml ) All contributions to change are valuable however.

Celebrating even small achievements can be inspiring to keep going and try new approaches but we are seldom likely to get all we want and must plough on. The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland was a very significant achievement, imperfect as its working out has been and it did not end divisions or bring about a meaningful way of making decisions on tough questions (not even thinking here of the constitutional issue) or means of dealing with the past. Resting on some of our laurels is not a recommended option.

At the very least we can keep hope for change alive. Accepting our limitations is difficult but means we can act more realistically and, at times, surprise ourselves and a lot of other people too. To think that ‘history is on our side’ can be a cliche and wishful thinking but if humanity is to survive in the longer term without us being slaves or automatons, or both, then justice, peace and sustainability are not optional extras for humanity – they are the basis for meaningful survival. There is of course a kind of power that grows out of the barrel of a gun or the explosion of a drone but that power destroys rather than creates. It is nonviolence and nonviolent struggle that has the power to positively transform our world – and knowing that should quicken our step and give us courage and strength for that – at the moment – uphill struggle.

– – – – –

Editorials: Blockades and nonviolence, European security

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , , , , ,

Blockades and nonviolence

The recent fuel price blockades by some farmers and hauliers in the Republic raise a significant number of questions about what constitutes peaceful and nonviolent action. There have been very variable, and mixed, reactions and emotions involved and these are understandable. The government chose to negotiate with official, existing bodies representing the sectors involved rather than the protesters themselves and there were concessions made. The protests were in that regard partly successful, even if the concessions were rather less than protesters wanted. There has been a contrast between the strength of the protests in the Republic, dealing with a local and sovereign government, and the lack of protests in the North where the chances of influencing the government in London, who decide on fuel duties, are very slim.

The first thing to say is that the blockades were peaceful but they were blockades. Some protesters refused to use the term ‘blockade’ but they clearly were that; preventing people going about their normal business and stopping traffic by placing vehicles in the way is clearly a blockade. But it is important also to distinguish between what is ‘peaceful’ and what is legal; something can be illegal but peaceful and indeed something can be legal but not peaceful or it may even be violent. What is legal is defined by the laws of the state. What is ‘positive’ socially and economically is another question.

The issues involved include matters to do with fossil fuels, the right and need to make a living, the right of people to go about their normal workday lives, and questions about what is democracy as well as the role of government. Ireland has not moved away from fossil fuels in the way it should have done and that is largely the fault of the government – and the people who elected them. If we were less dependent on fossil fuels then the issue of a considerable jump in fuel prices would not have been the issue it became. On the other hand, if people were unable to make a living because of the cost of fuel then something needed to be done – either government subsidies (by way of reduced fuel tax) or an increase in prices by those using the fuels, or both.

The main issue or problem was people being unable to get where they wanted or needed to be because of their form of transport being blockaded. This was obviously frustrating even if those stopped were supportive of the protesters – and infuriating if they were not, feeling they were being ‘held to ransom’. Did the protesters have the ‘right’ to do what they were doing? In nonviolent theory – except in cases of authoritarian regimes where protesters need to have their identity hidden – the general rule is that nonviolent protesters doing illegal acts ‘take the consequences’ and this is part of the protest, being willing to stand up and deal with what is thrown at them by the state while still challenging the state on it. After a partial victory in concessions being made by the state, and the army being called in to remove blockades, the protesters went home however the possible use of the army in such circumstances is a dangerous move regarding dealing with protests.

But were the protesters justified in causing severe inconvenience to other people​? This is a value judgement. ‘Nonviolent tactics’ can be used in negative ways – e.g. if racists organised a boycott of black and minority ethnic businesses that would be using a ‘nonviolent tactic’ for a negative and indeed violent cause. So it depends on whether you consider the protesters to be ‘right’ in their demand for government action on fuel prices. However in terms of positive nonviolent action by the protesters, other tactics could have been chosen which were more interactive with government and other citizens.

There is no category for the kind of blockade engaged in by the fuel protesters in Gene Sharp’s classic analysis of nonviolent tactics in his book “The Politics of Nonviolent Action” perhaps because such blockades were not much a feature of action when that book was written in 1973. Sharp’s category of ‘Nonviolent interjection’ (using human bodies) is rather different and involves people putting their bodies on the line – not their tractors and trucks.

However other analysis, e.g. https://www.nukeresister.org/2024/07/13/blockades-block-liberation-how-blockades-obstruct-nonviolence-and-democratic-revolutions/ condemns blockades as a nonviolent tactic – “Blockades replace the uncertainty of democracy and the vulnerability of nonviolence with military notions of politics: win and lose, strength and dominance, tactics and strategy.” “Blockades are reactive rather than proactive” and “The blockade becomes part of an order of power that strengthens the one who is already strong.”

A look at disruptive protest activities https://commonslibrary.org/disruptive-protest-tactics-helpful-or-harmful/ has a comparison table of costs and benefits. However its point of “Little evidence of impact on policy change” does not apply in the fuel protests as clearly the government did change its tune. The question is whether that was democracy in action, extortion and holding others over a barrel, or something in between. In 1974 in Northern Ireland the loyalist ‘strike’ or stoppage against the Sunningdale agreement power-sharing government succeeded in bringing down the new political arrangement; blockades were a prominent part of this but there was also a substantial threat of violence behind them.

And this brings us on to the question of what responsibility the government holds. Clearly action was needed of some kind. Should they have negotiated or changed policy faster? Should they have acted earlier to clear blockades? Would that have inflamed feelings? What about the possible or threatened use of the army in this situation? And what is the government’s responsibility in relation to an economic matter like this which is clearly beyond their control (the international market price for fossil fuels); is giving away money the answer? The extent to which the government could or should take action to subsidise fuel prices is a moot point, and using a comparison like still getting the same overall ‘take’, despite higher prices, is one possibility for arriving at a just solution or at least a measuring stick. A windfall tax on increased fossil fuel profits in this situation could also be a possibility which could be used to subsidise fuel prices, even if retrospectively.

Democracy is far more than the workings of a parliament or assembly and elections every number of years. The workings of civil society and NGOs is an important part of democracy and its health (just look at how Putin has hollowed out the civil society which had developed after the collapse of the Soviet Union). Citizenry are entitled to protest whether that be for progressive or reactionary causes and reasons; they have that legal and civic right. When there is a heartfelt issue where the government’s actions are not in accord with the views of a significant number of citizens then there is almost bound to be ongoing protest. The majority of citizens in the Republic are in favour of neutrality and opposed to US military use of Shannon but the craven politicians in the government have been too afraid of US economic power to take positive action – hence ongoing protest and actions at Shannon airport, some of which have been ‘illegal’ but they have also been morally just. This is part of democracy too and it can be argued that it is the government that has been acting undemocratically and in opposition to peace and neutrality.

How you judge the justice issue involved in the fuel blockades will determine how you see the rightness or the wrongness of the actions involved and the disruption to the rest of the population. The protesters were entitled to protest. The state was entitled to react. How civil society saw the issue was an important factor in the equations involved. Some commentators have pointed to the right wing sentiments of some of the protesters and this may be an issue but the overall question is one of justice and fairness to all, protesters and those affected by the protest. Nonviolent theory does of course include the need to disobey unjust laws – but, if need be, it also includes the possibility of disobedience of ‘neutral’ laws which are not immediately connected with the issue at hand.

The lesson in all this is, of course, to have urgent transition from fossil fuel use and prioritising local green energy supplies rather than being dependent on large corporations for either fossil fuels or the provision of clean energy. Decentralised systems are much more difficult to be abused by the powerful and more difficult to disrupt when things are falling apart.

Just like the mixed sentiments of many in the population regarding the fuel blockades, nonviolent theory does not provide an immediate and clear answer on the fuel protests however questions of justice and equity should be to the fore in any analysis. And imagination and positivity in protest is part of nonviolence.

European security

Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said (e.g. in Berlin) that security will be one of the key issues of the Irish EU presidency, coming up shortly for the second half of the year. He has also previously said, last December, that there was too much “squeamish debate” about Ireland working with other countries’, including NATO, militaries. He is quite right about an emphasis on security but not in the way he thinks – which evidently only concerns military security against Russia including EU-NATO cooperation. Here are the security issues which need tackled on an Irish, European and world level:

Human security:

The idea that ‘security’ is about military security is dangerous and deluded. Covid 19 was the greatest threat to world wellbeing for a long time and it had nothing to do with military security. Global heating is the largest endemic, global threat. Human security includes the right to life and freedom from violence, adequate food and housing, and civil freedom. The following issues of security all contribute to ‘human security’.

Ecological security:

Global heating is already a monumental disaster and stabilising global temperatures is of paramount importance. For Ireland there is the danger, analysed in a couple of recent reports, that the chances of the Atlantic AMOC current (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation a k a Gulf Stream) shutting down are greater than previously thought, which would leave Ireland with similar weather to Newfoundland and heightened sea levels. But this would affect the rest of northern Europe too and disastrously change weather patterns on a wider scale with likely catastrophic consequences for food production and wellbeing.

Food security:

Ireland is a net exporter of food but it is only in a few fields like dairy and beef. Most other food is imported. The island nature of Ireland and being on the western extremity of Europe adds a complicating and dangerous factor to food importing in times of chaos. At the very least contingency plans need to be in place for emergency times; at the moment the ‘just in time’ nature of food importing leaves countries very vulnerable but an island like Ireland especially so.

Security against war:

The arms build up in Europe is unsustainable in different ways, both economic and in terms of risk. The war in Ukraine, partly caused by NATO expansionism, is brutal but a wider European war, including the possible use of nuclear weapons, would be suicidal. The way to get rid of enemies is to turn them into friends; this is obviously easier said than done but current policies keep upping the level of threat. Ireland in particular, with its positive history of neutrality, should be working flat out on conflict mitigation and transformation. Standing up against the warmaking of the USA should be imperative.

Economic security:

The world is using its resources at an unsustainable rate. Apart from any questions of national and global equity, financial and trade justice are needed to help stabilise migration and avoid the chaos of migration beyond what is bearable for both sending and host countries. Obviously this relates closely to ecological security but it is much more. And developments in AI threaten both the economic and social wellbeing of many workers and would be workers; new parameters and paradigms need to be set for people’s involvement in economic activity and wage-earning. And relative economic prosperity does not guarantee the right to housing, for example, as people in Ireland, especially Dublin, and other places have been finding out.

We all deserve to feel secure. Current economic, military and international relations policies are creating massive insecurity. Emphasis on military security rather than human security is is part of a downward spiral of negativity and violence.

Editorials: Shannon and Iran, Food security and sovereignty

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , , , , ,

Shannon Airport and Iran

Lies and excuses

Both the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Helen McEntee, have seen it necessary to state that Shannon Airport is not being used by the USA in relation to the USA and Israel’s war on Iran. Perhaps this is so. But we do not actually know since the Irish state refuses to search US planes at Shannon, accepting assurances from a state which is headed by a Liar in Chief. In any case Shannon is still being used as a de facto US military base and the USA in regard to its military policies is clearly a rogue state – especially so under President Trump but under most other presidents too. Ireland has not even had the courage of Spain – a NATO member – in banning US military flights and use of bases and this says something clear about Ireland’s supposed neutrality.

The Irish state is supporting a regime which kills – murders – with impunity. This is disgraceful from any moral or ethical standpoint and obviously a negation of neutrality. And still the state makes excuses and accepts lies, and lies itself. And the USA would not use Shannon unless it was advantageous to its enormous global military empire. Transporting troops is an essential part of any military engagement and the fact of whether there is or is not military equipment being transported as well does not take from the facilitation of war by allowing troops to pass through.

Government inaction is even more bizarre given Helen McEntee’s and Micheál Martin’s restrained but implicit criticism of US policies in the Middle East. Helen McEntee even stated that she agreed with President Connolly’s assessment of recent events in the Middle east as a breach of international law. She also stated “I am deeply concerned that the US and Israel have decided to launch widespread armed conflict against Iran at this time.” Micheál Martin said that Ireland always believed that conflict should be resolved through diplomacy and negotiation, in line with the UN Charter and international law. However it is cowardice that neither would explicitly say USA actions were illegal or take action over Shannon.

Helen McEntee has also said that the Government has “no reason to believe” the US is using Irish airspace as part of its operations linked to the war in Iran – something which they actually have no way of knowing. Micheál Martin said similar things to his Minister for Foreign Affairs but stated that false claims about Shannon would damage Shannon airport itself. This is incredible. His concern about damage to Shannon shows no concern about ‘damage’ – obliteration – to those on the receiving end of US warmaking. He did admit that it was difficult to investigate if the USA was breaking the rules – another incredible statement because if he and the government had the courage they could routinely search all planes at Shannon which might be carrying weaponry. This is aside from the fact that allowing the transmission of troops is also breaking Irish neutrality.

In relation to all of this Niamh Ní Bhriain, writing in the Irish Examiner, https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41811128.html made the powerful point that “This failure to call out blatant violations of international law, and name those responsible for them, highlights precisely why we cannot trust the Government to decide on overseas troop deployment, and underscores why we must protect the Triple Lock. If the Government can’t say that a war is illegal, how can it decide whether to deploy troops to it?”

Meanwhile Belfast International Airport at Aldergrove (15 miles from Belfast to the west) is used freely by UK and US militaries with US flights refuelling there which go directly to the Gulf, presumably with war supplies. Aldergrove is thus directly complicit in the US-Israeli onslaught on Iran and the atrocities which have taken place as part of that. As the North is part of the United Kingdom which belongs to NATO, there are no legal grounds to object beyond facilitating wars illegal under international law – but there are huge ethical and moral grounds to do so.

In relation to the USA and Israeli war on Iran (and by the latter on Lebanon) more generally it is clear that US-Iranian negotiations were on the cusp of success, or at least a good chance of it, when Trump decided to bomb Iran into hell. International observers have stated as much. Presumably Trump, emboldened by his ‘success’ (from his point of view) in Venezuela, thought a couple of days bombing would overthrow the theocratic regime in Iran; he clearly wasn’t listening to advice, including from Gulf states. He knew best, as always. But military attacks tend to strengthen the regime in a country being attacked. Another factor is presumably that the US government decided to back Israeli bombing which was going to happen anyway. The environmental costs of war are also extremely severe, an issue of no concern to Trump but another nail in the coffin of a stable climate.

Whether Donald Trump will have a TACO moment (Trump Always Chickens Out) or will continue to exacerbate the complete mess he has got the region and the world into remains to be seen. Saving face may be his primary objective at this stage. The USA projects itself as a world peacekeeper when historically it has been a warmaker. Western states need to cotton on to this and no more so than a supposedly neutral state on the western extremity of the continent of Europe. Meanwhile everyone suffers from the economic fallout of the war, and poor people and countries most of all. The repercussions of this astoundingly stupid war have only just begun, most drastically for the families of those killed and for the displaced in Lebanon and Iran.

–

Food security and sovereignty

The related issues of food security and food sovereignty tend to trundle on in the background, raised and discussed by groups like Afri, Feasta and some organic growers or educators but never or seldom reaching mainstream concern, even when a war, such as the current USA-Israel onslaught on Iran, disrupts the global economy. However you do not need to be a doomsday merchant to have concern in this whole area. Food security is just that, being secure in your food supply with adequate quality and nutrition. Food sovereignty is having control of your food growing, supply and distribution and not being dependent on outside corporations or multinationals who can turn the screw on you as soon as bid you the time of day. While these are major issues in poor countries (seed sovereignty was saved in Kenya with a contribution to that made by Clare O’Grady Walshe) this is also an urgent issue for Ireland.

The world has – just – avoided nuclear war which would herald a nuclear winter and possibly the starvation of most of the people on the globe. If that particular apocalypse comes about we are pretty much all doomed. However there are all sorts of lesser scenarios where food chains are at risk. One of these is clearly regional warfare not escalating to nuclear but which nevertheless manages to cause major disruption – the Iran war is an example of the kind of thing possible. Global heating will affect many, primarily poor, countries in their food production and it is hard to know what the repercussions will be. There are all sorts of unexpected circumstances which can, and will, arise, including natural disasters which may affect our ‘bread’ basket. And given the likely food crisis arising from global heating, as crops become impossible to grow though excessive heat and insufficient moisture, it is incumbent on us to be proactive in providing more, varied, food ourselves in an ecological and sustainable way.

Ireland exports food but it is mainly meat and dairy products. We are highly dependent on food imports for much of our diet. We might be all right for a bacon and cabbage diet (and that bacon may come from intensive factory-farming) but for most of what we eat today we are dependent on international trade, and most of that on a ‘just in time’ basis – meaning there are no stocks to fall back on. It is also true that a vegan or vegetarian diet, or at least a low meat consumption one, is an important contribution to avoiding global heating. Of course it may be more efficient ecologically for some crops to be grown in warmer countries than Ireland but these are at risk in crisis situations, and the supply of local seasonal food for our diet is the most sensible option.

Encouraging citizens to grow their own food is part of an appropriate response, and the 2024 law to have local councils provide community garden and allotment spaces in the Republic is a good one (all councils are obliged to be active in working on this and Ireland lags way behind other European countries in provision). The respective governments should be seeing what they can do to encourage responsible and diverse agriculture – not the intensive animal variety which has led, for example, to the destruction of Lough Neagh (still not being sorted out). But there could also be a lot more imagination applied, for example in public planting of trees to include a substantial number of fruit trees – birds and insects will benefit from these even if we humans do not. Education in sustainable and organic horticulture is never more needed,

This is all before we even broach the topic of Ultra Processed Foods, bad for us and often bad for the environment. Exercising food sovereignty and denying the power of large multinationals to control food and thereby control people’s (ill) health and livelihoods will be an ongoing struggle.

We live in a very uncertain world. We may wish for stability but we are unlikely to find it, and global heating will disrupt a huge amount of what we have previously taken for granted. We ain’t seen nuthin’ yet in terms of (forced) migration. We ain’t seen nuthin’ yet in terms of disruption to food production and food supplies. We would be wise to plan ahead while we can so that we are in a better place to ride out the coming storms – and not, as a rich country, be taking the food that belongs on poor people’s plates elsewhere if and when food supplies dry up.

Editorials: Iran war – the crazies are still in charge: Northern Ireland – United Kingdom or United Ireland?

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , , ,

War on Iran

The crazies are still in charge

Donald Trump is just one of many US presidents to start wars that made little or no sense to anyone thinking rationally, let alone about peace or political progress. There is the old maxim that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (attributed to Lord Acton late in the 19th century) – however Donald Trump was already highly corrupt before he got one form of absolute power in becoming commander in chief of the USA armed forces when president. But think back to the Iraq war, the Afghan war, the Vietnam war (among others), all wars within living memory which US presidents have started and backed to the hilt – and all completely disastrous. There was no basis in international law for any of them but US presidents tend to think in terms of ‘US law’ – what they can so as the world’s No.1 superpower – rather than international law.

And clearly Trump is Bored of Peace as well as being, literally, the Board of Peace – and as a result around 150 children died in one school in Iran. Pax Christi International’s statement on the ‘Board of Peace’ is at https://paxchristi.net/pax-christi-international-updated-declaration-on-the-so-called-board-of-peace/

Joining with Israel to attack Iran is a nonsense and destabilising for the whole Middle East. Given that it is highly unlikely US boots will be committed to walk the ground in Iran, aerial attacks are extremely hit and miss. Military targetting may be much better than in the past, as shown by the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but trying to achieve regime change in Iran – if that is Trump’s aim – by aerial bombing is so blunt an instrument that it is likely to be useless. In the mean time many thousands will die, the plight of the Iranian people as a whole will become even more intolerable, and the regime may simply regroup and rebuild its power which had become much shakier after recent events and brutal repression within the country. For how long does the USA keep bombing?

We use the term ‘crazies’ in the title of this editorial in a very loose sense, not literally, but of people doing ‘crazy’, counterproductive things. Donald Trump may be a capricious, narcissistic, megalomaniac egotist but he is not insane. He does what he can get away with to assuage his ego and hunger for power, results and instant gratification. The political system in the USA, along with its culture of greed, brought him to the top; we are not saying the people who voted him in were necessarily voting out of greed, undoubtedly some were, but many more were voting for Trump because they suffered from the greed at the heart of the US system.

Bringing about change and some measure of democracy and human rights in an autocracy like Iran is not easy. Donald Trump is seeking easy and simplistic answers insofar as he might be thought to be seeking any kind of answers. Military power can destroy, it can sometimes force results, but it is difficult for it to build long lasting change. And defections from the military are much more likely to happen in a nonviolent campaign for change than in a war situation; this makes regime change unlikely under attack. And even totally destroying somewhere is not a guarantee of regime change – Israel’s annihilation of the infrastructure in Gaza and many of its people did not dint Hamas control there.

Cowardly European leaders have tended to call on Iran to stop its attacks while not saying ‘boo’ to the USA for instigating the war. Meanwhile, will we see the Irish government acting to end US military use of Shannon Airport? No. Micheál Martin has expressed “deep concern” about the attacks and said that “Ireland has always believed that conflict should be resolved through diplomacy and negotiation, in line with the principles of the UN Charter and international law.” If that is the case he has a strange way of showing it and should immediately put a stop to US military use of Shannon. He has neither the inclination nor the courage to do so. Thus the crazies and their violence are continuing to be supported by the Irish government.

Northern Ireland

United we stand?

– But in a United Kingdom with Northern Ireland as a member or in a united Ireland?

‘The facts speak for themselves’ is sometimes used when people are looking at a well defined issue and someone judges that ‘the facts’ clearly indicate one definite conclusion. But it is also true that even in a simple case, ‘the facts’ may mean something different to a person looking at the matter from a different perspective. And when it comes to a complex and contested issue like United Kingdom/United Ireland the facts can be interpreted in wildly different ways and through totally different tinted spectacles.

Let us take the simple fact that life expectancy in the Republic has outpaced the North over the last couple of decades to stand at up to two years higher. Fact. But what does this mean? Does this mean people in the Republic are overall healthier? Is it because they are wealthier? And then what is wealth in a high-wage, high-cost economy like the Republic? Who can actually afford what and where? What about the long shadow of the Troubles, in various effects, and its impact on life expectancy in the North? Is the health system working better for people in the Republic while the NHS in the North struggles, or are both struggling differently? Or are people south and west of the border choosing a healthier lifestyle which then makes them live longer – and people in the North could do the same? Would people in the North be happy to swap what they have, free at point of delivery for everyone (that is, if it delivers) for the system in the Republic?

Thus there can be no one firm conclusion drawn from a simple fact like the above when so many other issues are at play. Yes, we can make some limited conclusions and surmises but that is it. And when it comes to all the other issues in the two jurisdictions in Ireland, things get mighty complicated, and ethnic and national allegiances come to the fore. One recent fascinating attempt at demystifying issues and looking impartially at United Kingdom/United Ireland possibilities is the ARINS (Analysing and Researching Ireland, North and South) book by journalists Fintan O’Toole and Sam McBride, “For and against a united Ireland” where they both summon up their best arguments – for both sides. It is a brilliant concept and one which we can learn from. We all have a lot to learn and walking – or talking – in someone else’s shoes is a good way to do it.

INNATE works on an all-Ireland basis. While individual members would have their own views, the INNATE policy is to let people, both North and in the Republic, decide in an informed way – and that, given the prejudices and shibboleths which exist on all sides is a difficult task. The Good Friday Agreement is far from ideal in that it allows for a referendum to decide the issue on a simple 50% + 1 basis, that referendum to be called by the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should they think there might be a simple majority for change.

It is unlikely that there will be agreement across the board to change this stipulation in the Good Friday Agreement and it is a simple, majoritarian decision. If the lead up to such a decision was inadequate, and the aftermath botched, the result could be disastrous whether it was a narrow majority for a united Ireland or a larger one. And if the decision was for the status quo, a close decision could also be problematic. It would have been much better if there had been a multi-option referendum but we are where we are.

And given that, there are processes which are needed at different stages – now, during the run up to any referendum, and afterwards. Society would need work like that done by Community Dialogue writ large; discussing the important issues in a supportive manner with clarity on issues and options. And in relation to that the Irish government should be now initiating discussions in the Republic about what proper engagement with this might entail rather than having some of the somewhat simplistic and blanketed reactions that exist currently among the citizenry.

Of course nothing is decided until everything is decided but the Irish government should be engaging with issues for a united Ireland such as welfare and pensions, flags and emblems, and devolved government (including but not exclusively whether there would still be a regional assembly at Stormont) as well of course human rights and cultural guarantees. This may not be done currently partly in deference to unionist susceptibilities but the thing is we know what the North looks like in a United Kingdom but very little about what a United Ireland would entail.

Part of prior decision making in regard to a referendum on a united Ireland should be a policy for the process afterwards, should there be a vote to change. A transition period of seven to ten years, a decade, seems a reasonable time frame for a transition. The vast majority of unionists and loyalists are currently unwilling to discuss issues to do with a united Ireland, even what guarantees they would want, because they regard that as antithetical to their cause, but if the writing is on the wall then that vast majority would certainly engage.

The Republic has been getting closer and closer to NATO and EU militarism over the last few decades so the assumption might be, or seems to be for many people, that a united Ireland would join NATO. However neutrality is popular with citizenry in the Republic and with nationalists in the North so it should not be assumed that there would be a further sell out to international militarism in a united Ireland. Of course citizens in a united Ireland should be free to go off and join the British armed forces if that was their choice – much as we would like to discourage it – but for the new state to fully join NATO – even as opposed to the fellow traveller nature of the relationship currently – would be a highly retrograde step. Currently the principles of neutrality are ignored and avoided by many in the Irish establishment and sometimes, as with US military use of Shannon Airport, there is a total failure of courage to stand up to the world’s No.1 economic and military power. But perhaps change can come and, once more, Ireland will be properly engaged with peacemaking on the international stage.

– – – – –

Editorial: We are citizens of the world

Editorials, Nonviolent News,

Our first loyalty is and should be as citizens of the world.

That is not how nation states operate or their leaders think; loyalty to the state should come first, anything else is an also ran. Of course in some instances, multi-state or suprastate entities such as the EU supersede this primary required loyalty. But the EU itself is building itself as a supranational entity with military, great power, capacity – effectively a USE, United States of Europe.

There are some advantages to the nation state where it provides services that are needed by citizens. But it will also claim exclusive use of force within its borders, whether it can achieve that or not. The claimed prerogative to be the (sole legitimate) wielder of military power, and its exercise of that, is one which sits uneasily with those believing in nonviolence. And nation states can treat their citizens terribly and get away with it. While some of an anarchist persuasion wish to see the state withering away to be replaced by a totally cooperative society, many believers in peace may settle for a state which is gentle and caring in its dealings with its citizens and with the world outside.

The word ‘citizen’ has different connotations or meanings depending on the context – as an ordinary member of society, as a resident of a city (where the term comes from), or as a ‘member’ of a country or state. It is thus specific to a geographical area. To say we are ‘citizens of the world’ is in a way to subvert the term to apply to all of our Earth. But our globe is also a specific geographical area within our solar system and universe. There is no reason we cannot say we are indeed citizens of our particular world; by living here we have – conditional – ownership or rentalship of it and a responsibility to it and to what else it contains.

Samuel Johnson’s dictum that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel can be interpreted in different ways and was not an indictment of patriotism per se. But we have too many nation states – one would be too many – who believe in some way that that they are ‘chosen’, ‘special’ or in some way the centre of the universe. This goes with the territory of the most powerful global powers. It is also something which can be exacerbated by right wing religious beliefs as in the USA or Israel – or Britain in the past (and possibly in the present).

Of course we all have our own moral, political, religious or secular views and relationship in relation to the state. One aim to make progress is to transcend the hold of the nation state by promoting true international cooperation, not through regional power blocs like the EU or NATO but through wider associations which show we are all part of the human family.

One current major difficulty with this is that the United Nations, which should be the vehicle for such moves, is in the doldrums, partly because of the great power control of the UN Security Council. Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” – a misnomer of there ever was one – for Gaza and possibly elsewhere is a bizarre aberration, not least in that the appointed chair is ‘Donald Trump’ and not ‘The President of the USA’; it is a personal fiefdom which the United Nations has inexplicably backed. And the Irish government’s ditching of the Triple Lock on deployment of the Irish army overseas is a move to back EU and NATO militarism – troops have already been withdrawn from UN peacekeeping service to enable participation in EU battlegroups.

It may seem utopian to proclaim “We are citizens of the world first” when we see the reality of how things are at the moment. And so, in a way it is utopian but if we do not build that conception of “We are all in this together” to solve the problems of the world then we are reduced to “It is everyone for themselves” – and we know where that has got us. At a time when global heating threatens us all on this earth in serious ways, we see a nation state like the USA saying “Drill, baby, drill” when the effect is “Burn, baby, burn”. However Ireland itself, Republic or the North, have not done a quarter of what it could, and should, be doing to help save ourselves and everyone else from the effects of a burning planet.

We do have to pay our national taxes, we do have to obey national laws – except as part of nonviolent resistance where we oppose unjust laws or even just laws as part of a political campaign. We can take pride in our ethnic, national and regional identity, there is nothing wrong with that so long as we respect other people’s. In Ireland we can be ‘good Europeans’ but with a very different view of what being ‘a good European’ is. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Europe-World.pdf The role that Irish – and other people – can play is as peacemakers, and with the at times very positive experience of Irish involvement in international peacemaking in the 20th century. Becoming part of an EU and NATO military machine, whether directly or indirectly, is not being a citizen of the world, it is becoming part of a selfish and violent empire or empire in the making.

We are all part of ‘home sapiens’ and if we forget that then we are indeed in trouble and likely to stay in trouble. We can take pride in the best of human achievements, cultural and technological, while striving to build a world where justice and peace are the supreme values. If we are unable to collectively build that consciousness then the future of the world is grim, much grimmer than it is for many today.

We are citizens of the world first and foremost. Let us say that with pride.

Editorial: USA, rogue state extraordinaire

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , , , , , ,

We have previously disputed and tried to debunk the common western idea that, prior to Donald Trump becoming president of the USA that there was such a thing as a just, liberal post-World War II ‘world order’. This was a US and western fiction. Biden and Obama used drone or other attacks to kill who they wanted. The USA – and others such as the UK – helped destabilise Asia, the Middle East, and Africa through their attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Going back a generation or two, the USA killed many millions in Vietnam and Cambodia for absolutely no logical purpose and with no positive result except its own perceived interests.

Any analysis of the history of the USA has to conclude that while its foundation was ‘anti-colonialist’, its establishment in pushing aside and often exterminating the first nations, and its actions against Mexico, when expanding its boundaries was undoubtedly imperialist. Now we are again told, by the US State Department, that “This is OUR hemisphere” after the attack on Venezuela and the abduction of Nicolás Maduro. This was not the way to bring human rights to Venezuela. And the USA is not ‘America’.

While the attack on Venezuela was limited, with perhaps forty people killed, the idea that one country can intervene where it likes in its own interests and force a country to act as dictated to is extremely dangerous – the idea that it was to control drugs supply if a fictional fig leaf and there were many other ways to do that. The question is of course – who will be next? If the cowardly western nations with their supposed high minded ideals fail to condemn Trump then the Donald will conclude that he can act with impunity, certainly in his ‘own’ hemisphere but elsewhere as well – Africa, the Middle East, who knows.

It is ironic, though partly based on his own musings, that Trump was seen initially as an ‘isolationist’ president. With failures at home on the cost of living, for example, he may have turned to foreign military ventures as a way to distract and show his power. The problem is not just what he has done and may do but what Putin and Xi may conclude from such events. If one military superpower, admittedly the pre-eminent one, can act like this, why should Russia and China restrain themselves from acting accordingly? The USA is not the only rogue superpower, it seems to go with the territory. The fact the world is looking at a possible military takeover of Greenland by the USA is evidence of current international lawlessness and dangers.

Imperialism always has its self justifications and often there is some truth in them. The British Raj brought a railway system to India, essential for movement of goods and people, but it did so to enable control and its economic gain. Maduro has been a brutal tyrant who needed replaced along with his regime – but do we really think the USA was acting out of the goodness of its heart to control drugs and liberate the people of Venezuela? The USA likes to think of itself as the world’s policeman but it is a world bully. And what the outcome will be in Venezuela is far from certain beyond suborning itself to the demands of the US president; will the people be any freer or less poor and the country more democratic? The answer to these questions is ‘currently unlikely’.

Ireland is heavily dependent economically on US multinationals and investment. That does not mean it should not take action – it means it is morally obliged to do so. The least it can do is express strong disagreement with the US action as well as ban the US military from the use of Shannon Airport (or anywhere else in the Republic) to avoid actively facilitating US military control and further rogue actions around the world. Moral cowardice is too weak a term to apply to Irish governments over the last few decades in regard to Shannon; it is reprehensible political failure of the worst kind to support such a violent, rogue state as the USA. Irish inaction on this is woefully shameful especially when most citizens want to see Ireland playing a positive, neutral role in world affairs rather than supporting militaristic ventures by a country which acts in such a destructive way.

However there is another way in which governments and often people in Ireland and Europe are avoiding what is really happening in the world and especially in Europe itself. The drift to armed conflict with Russia is like the drift into the First World War. There is a massive lack of understanding of conflict and how it develops – and a massive lack of understanding of how conflict can be de-escalated without perpetuating injustice or simply acquiescing to might-is-right approaches. Western Europe seems intent on continually adding fuel to the fire – and the Irish government is now a fellow traveller with that approach.

Of course there are dangers emanating from Russia but many of those dangers come from western European approaches and responses to that country and its brutal and autocratic leader – whose personal emergence came not only through the re-emergence of political patterns in Russia but also western approaches to that country at and after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It is cruelly ironic that with all our 21st century knowledge of science, technology, and some human sciences, we as a world know so little about creating a peaceful world through creative means of dealing with conflict. As with global heating, closing our eyes and hoping the issue will go away can be, literally, fatal. We have the ready means to destroy what civilisation we have and yet we seem content to tread the same weary path to self-destruction. Homo ‘sapiens’ may be a misnomer.

The greeting to wish people a ‘peaceful New Year’ seems both wildly appropriate and inappropriate when we find ourselves where are are now. We do have the means, through nonviolence and creative approaches to conflict and global heating, to deal with the big issues but what we need are the political will and direction to take the path to peace and not the path to oblivion. As peace, green and human rights activists we can do what we can but we need to have a larger, wider movement with national-cultural support and governments that look, listen and learn. l

Editorial: Despair and hope

Editorials, Nonviolent News, ,

There are so many issues that deserve our attention we can become despondent. Ecological crises, political crises, war, repression, racism, sectarianism, inequality and injustice, interpersonal violence, all impact on our consciousness if we are awake. The world is not in a good place at the moment.

However we can take inspiration from the myriad of people who are taking action on so many different issues. We just have to look at the Irish response to the total destruction of Gaza; large scale solidarity of various sorts and, week in and week out, people demonstrating for an end to the killing and justice for Palestinians. There are so many other causes for which people are struggling.

We also need to reclaim the word ‘woke’ as a positive because the opposite is ‘asleep’ and ignorant of what is actually happening. We should be proud to be awake, to be woke. Conservatives and reactionaries have always accused those who espouse needed changes as mad and bad, as threatening the stability of society and adopting imaginary and unnecessary causes – and yet those causes (e.g. anti-slavery) become accepted. To think that movements for change are perfect is also, of course a mistake, and we all make mistakes and need to adjust, just as society needs to adjust as change, of whatever kind, takes place. A failure to move forward is effectively to move backwards as new challenges confront us.

Despondency can come from frustration at where we are at in our cause and campaigning. Bill Moyer’s MAP/Movement Action Plan, now a relatively old USA formulation of stages successful social movements go through, is a really useful tool in helping us with this (you can find plenty of information if you word search for it). The stages there should not be taken as a definitive list but as an indication of how things can go and grow. The most relevant aspect of this in relation to how we feel is that a campaign may actually be further on towards success than previously but the situation feels worse, and there can be greater frustration than earlier. Working for change is not easy and understanding where we are at is difficult but essential so we have the courage and knowledge to continue.

As we come to the end of one year and the start of the next there is a cultural norm to at least talk about ‘new year resolutions’. This is not pointless but our self evaluation needs not to be just an annual commitment of some sort to do or not do this or that. It should be part of what we are and do. However self evaluation can also become obsessive and as with so many things in life it is a question of finding a balance. Over commitment can lead to a deterioration in our personal relationships and that may not be good for us nor our friendships and close or intimate relationships.

We can only do what we can do, and if we do that then we have done our bit. Of course we may feel that we could have done more but that, if it consumes us, can become counterproductive. If we do not have at least some balance in our lives – for spending time with those we are closest too as well as enjoyment – burnout or simply crabbiness and minor misery will make us an impediment rather than an asset for change.

Being comfortable with ourselves is both a necessity and a risk. If we are too comfortable then we will drift into complacency. But while we should always be challenging ourselves we need part of those challenges to be small, achievable things; seeing success is necessary to retain our commitment and stamina. But we also need our longer term goals such as achieving equitable, sustainable energy systems to prevent further climate heating, or the advancement of nonviolent means of confronting repression and violence so we are not caught in endless war.

Our minds are wonderful things. If we set our minds to be activists who care not just about our causes but also for ourselves and for those around us then we can be a real part of the change that we wish to see. May the wind be at our back.

Editorials: Palestine – no nation once again, Isolationism

Editorials, Nonviolent News, ,

No nation once again

A ceasefire in Gaza is something to be glad about and celebrate – that some of the slaughter has stopped – but the nature of the reality of the ‘ceasefire’ is uncertain and the underlying situation is still just as dire as it was. 104 Palestinians were killed in Israeli attacks overnight after one IDF person was shot and killed in late October. Justice demands a viable Palestinian state and the ceasefire, such as it is, makes no demands on Israel in that direction – indeed Netanyahu was adamant that there would be no such development. There cannot be peace without Palestinian statehood, something which Israeli right wingers deny and ignore because their aim is to permanently dispossess all Palestinians. And there are no moves to end illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

Seeing Donald Trump lapping up Israeli adulation in the Knesset was nauseating, not because a ceasefire was not a good thing but because when the ego of Trump has landed it is all about him, and he has backed Israel to the core and effectively also, through the supply of weapons and finance, a shoah or holocaust of Palestinians (both terms appropriate for their etymological origins) and their ability to live a humane life. President Biden was no different or as bad in a different way. To say Gaza has been bombed back to the stone age would be a euphemism; with rubble and contaminated ground everywhere, it has no clear waters or abundant wildlife that neolithic people had, and no freedom to move.

The agreed ceasefire is vague about what will happen in future. Gaza needs urgent reconstruction, definite timelines, and security guarantees (there should also be security guarantees for border Israelis but an end to occupation and colonialism in the West Bank). Major action by world states, including the USA, is necessary to get Israel to abide by international norms; the demand for Palestinian statehood needs to be clearly and repeatedly enunciated with sanctions if it refuses to cooperate. While most western European countries are also guilty, it is the power and money of the USA which has permitted Israel to act as it has in destroying Gaza.

The nature of US support for Israel comes not so much from the Jewish lobby – and some Jewish people would be highly critical of Israel – but from the conservative, evangelical Christian lobby who have particular or peculiar beliefs about Israel needing to be strong for the perceived second coming of Jesus Christ. This level of support is strange given that there are still a small number of Palestinian Christians who US evangelical Christians seem to ignore.

The attack by Hamas and others from Gaza on Israelis on 7th October 2023 was brutal and deadly. Israel has gone on to inflict not just an eye for an eye but many eyes for each of the nearly 1200 people killed in Israel at that time. Netanyahu and the Israeli state proclaimed they would totally eradicate Hamas but by their actions have ensured even greater hatred of Israel and many new recruits for Hamas as they killed existing Hamas members.

It may seem unrealistic to the extent of being quixotic but one aim should be Palestinian-Israeli friendship; turning enemies into friends. That can only happen a long way down the line when Palestine has got justice and this requires not just its own state but economic development to allow its people a reasonable life. Pro-Israeli people in the West point to Israel being the only ‘democratic’ state in the region; what this does not cover is that Israel is denying justice and self determination to another whole people, a crime which is compounded by its colonialism in the west Bank and previous displacement of Palestinians in the Nakba of 1948.

Isolationism

Ireland and Irish neutrality are targeted in various ways by those who are pro-NATO. This includes such comments as Ireland is not stepping up to the mark in ‘defending Europe’ or indeed Ireland itself, that it is not shouldering the burden and expense of defence, not being proper Europeans, and so on. This is militarist nonsense. It is also nonsense which is spouted by numerous pro-establishment commentators in Ireland. Edward Burke, for example, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/new-president-neutrality-and-eu-presidency-irelands-defence-dilemma sets up Irish neutrality as a straw man and states “The Irish left and Catherine Connolly are badly out of step with much of Europe” and “While Ireland debates its neutrality and the triple-lock, much of the rest of Europe is preparing for the prospect of a major war with Russia.” There is no exploration given of the possibilities of a positive neutrality – or how war and further conflict can be avoided in Europe. Assumptions are made about the necessity of preparing for war.

Ireland’s best defence was, and is, being properly neutral and contributing to global peace. In a war situation there is no belligerent power that would respect Irish neutrality if they felt there was strategic interest in ignoring or overcoming it – and there is no military defence that even a heavily armed country the size of Ireland with its population could effectively offer. There is no point in trying. This was also the case in the past as the Billy King column refers to, in this issue, about both NATO and Warsaw Pact in the past being willing to ignore Irish neutrality if they saw fit.

Within the military world there is the possibility of ‘non-offensive defence’, a military approach which cannot be perceived as aggressive. But there is also nonviolent civilian defence, a cost-effective approach involving the population’s resistance and the planned denial of facilities in the country that might make an erstwhile invader decide invasion was risky or pointless. But a much larger danger for Ireland is nuclear or other WMD warfare; the risk of ‘old-fashioned’ invasion is much less than Ireland being bombed to oblivion. And avoiding the latter can only come through widespread warfare being averted.

Ireland needs to be much more positive in its neutrality. The idea of neutrality being isolationist is laughable if the country invests more in being active for peace, both in Europe and elsewhere. In fact if you want to use the term ‘isolationist’ it can be used for those who believe that their expensive militarism is an answer to their and the world’s problems (‘isolationist’ because other, opposed, forces think the same way about their own militarism). And ‘Europe’ (often used as a term for the EU) is not the world. A proper and active neutrality is needed – something the Irish government has been avoiding by cosying up to NATO as closely as it can without actually becoming a member – which would be politically unacceptable.

Neutrality in being pro-peace, pro-disarmament, and pro-world justice would be the very opposite of isolationist. There is a bigger world out there than NATO or the EU with global threat issues such as rampant climate change which threatens mass migration and dislocation on a scale we can barely imagine. Ireland should play a constructive role in the EU but it should oppose the militarist path which it is engaged in, on course to become another superpower. And the world has too many ‘super’powers; the EU, it is already clear through its ‘Fortress Europe’ and militarist policies promoting armies and armaments, would not act much differently to any other superpower, which is to say, unjustly, and things can only get worse if EU military capacity continues to grow.

The EU, with its origins in a post-World War Two peace project, is in real danger of becoming a European isolationist superpower.

Editorials: Legacy, Finding our niche, Monitoring

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , ,

Legacy: At least a little, nearly too late

‘Being left a legacy’ can be a pleasant part of the more unpleasant aftermath of a loved one’s death. But in Northern Ireland ‘legacy issues’ are the painful aftermath of thirty years or more of violent conflict. As an INNATE poster states, “The past is not water under the bridge – It is water filling a reservoir”. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/posters/ There is nowhere that dealing with the aftermath of violent conflict is easy or pleasant and the path to dealing with it has been tortuously slow in Northern Ireland.

The Stormont House Agreement of 2014 remarkably achieved considerable support across the board on dealing the issue, although not unanimously (e.g. opposition from the Ulster Unionist Party). In a situation where ‘our’ victims are more important and more tragic than yours, getting relative agreement and buy in to a collective process is extremely difficult but vital in going forward. The structures of the 2014 agreement on dealing with the past looked a bit complicated but were a relatively comprehensive take on what was needed.

And then the British Tory government reneged on the agreement and failed to implement it or its spirit. Worse was to come when in 2023 the Conservatives introduced their very own Legacy Act, purportedly to be ‘realistic’ but actually to protect British soldiers and the British state from unwelcome publicity about their role in the Troubles, with an end to prosecutions. It had, in contrast to the 2014 agreement, support from no one in Northern Ireland apart from British Army veterans; this was an amazing piece of arrogance and self-interest by the British government in relation to Northern Ireland.

The recent agreement on legacy between the British and Irish governments takes us back close to the 2014 agreement but with different infrastructure. A Legacy Commission with independent oversight is being set up out of the 2023 Legacy Act’s ICRIR/Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. A 2024 document from CAJ https://caj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/CAJ-Reform-of-ICRIR-Report-November-24.pdf can be used for reference in examining the new structure. An Independent Commission on Information Retrieval will be set up on a cross-border basis. Inquests which had been halted by the 2023 Legacy Act will resume and there are other details to the agreement.

In the mean time there have been eleven largely wasted years when the families of those killed have grown older or died, and 2014 was itself sixteen years after the Good Friday Agreement. In the period since 2014, inquests were one feature which had worked in retrieving truth – and those had also been removed by the Tories’ 2023 Legacy Act.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Gráinne Teggart of Amnesty International in the North said ““We will carefully examine this framework to assess whether it fully complies with the European Convention on Human Rights and whether it can genuinely deliver for victims. For too long, families have been met with secrecy, impunity and the denial of their right to truth, this must end.” Let us hope that there is indeed light at the end of this long and dark tunnel. Northern Ireland has enough problems to deal without being anchored to the past by unresolved violent tragedies and unendurable pain for those who have suffered and their loved ones.

–

Finding our niche

The world is in such a sorry mess that it is hard to know where and what we should be doing. ‘Making the world a better place’ and not a total disaster for our descendents (literal or metaphorical) seems such a tall order that finding our own place can be difficult and what we end up doing can be accidental – perhaps somebody needed something doing some time and we enjoyed doing it and thought it worthwhile and continued (and that is not necessarily a bad way to get in to doing things).

Presumably many of those reading this will already have not only found their niche but already feel over-involved. Setting parameters to our involvement is often exceedingly difficult but is necessary for our own preservation, to avoid burnout and give us some quality of life. We should not be aiming for martyrdom.

However even if we do have our involvements, reviewing our engagement can be very worthwhile. What do we consider the most important issues around at any level (international, national, local)? Where can we possibly make a difference or at least a stand that is important? And can we balance one kind of involvement with another, e.g. working for world peace (macro level) while being involved with anti-racism or migrant support (micro level)?

There are many different kinds of personality, and we undoubtedly have widely varying interests. How can we match our individuality with what needs done? Of course doing new things and pushing out our own boundaries is good, and it is never too late to learn new skills or approaches. And it is also a question of what is already being done and what is left undone. If something is already ‘being done’ can we make a difference and push things further or are we better to set out on something new which no one is doing? Our personality and skills level count in this regard; are we happy striking out into the unknown or are we much better as part of a team?

It can be difficult to review our own involvement for a variety of reasons including the simple one that others may not give us feedback. Sometimes we have to step back and read between the lines – and possibly even the lies. But we should also know how to take, and acknowledge to ourselves, compliments which are made about our work. And we can ask for feedback which may be important in helping us whether to continue on a particular path or not.

One choice we have to make – though it may also be made for us – is whether we work full time and paid in the field we wish to be primarily engaged politically or socially. Most of us cannot. Peace (work), for example, does not, except in very particular circumstances, pay. So we then have to work out our work/voluntary work/family balance and that can be a very difficult one to juggle if we have a partner who is less engaged and children or elderly parents who need attention and support.

We also need to consider our ‘job satisfaction’ in our involvements. Every job or involvement is likely to come with certain things needing doing which are boring or not what we particularly want to be doing. That is life. But we do need to assess both our overall satisfaction and our perceived effectiveness. It is important to state here that ‘effectiveness’ can be measured in many different ways and success (cf Bill Moyer, Movement Action Plan, for which you can word search) is not a straightforward path. ‘Success’ might be in raising an issue rather than getting it resolved to your satisfaction – we are not miracle workers.

‘Time out’ is valuable in allowing us to reflect and replenish. Speaking to friends, loved ones and colleagues may help us with our thinking. Building the future is a difficult task but it is one which can be done with enthusiasm, imagination and good humour – if we are in ‘the right place’ both physically and metaphorically. We all have our place to play and it is a team effort, even if we work apart.

May you and your involvements flourish.

–

Monitoring the situation

Nonviolent approaches are very diverse and include both activist intervention and third party conciliation, mediation or other forms of activity. One of these third party interventions is monitoring or observing situations of conflict or potential conflict but there are many different approaches within this – the range is explored in a checklist at www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/25987023457/in/album-72157629555375796 (part of an album on monitoring, accompaniment and unarmed civilian protection) The terms monitoring’ and ‘observing’ can be used by different people to denote slightly different approaches but generally the terms are interchangeable.

Every technique or approach in life has its strengths and weaknesses. Monitoring can actually be an important tool in some circumstances both in helping avoid trouble developing and in being able to tell a relatively unbiased account of what happened if trouble did indeed develop, and possibly feed back to the parties involved what they could have done better. It has been used in Northern Ireland extensively in relation to parades as well as some other situations. The recent development of a Network of Legal Observers in the Republic [See Nonviolent News 332] is very welcome and legal observing watches the servants of the state, in this case the police/Gardaí to see whether they are acting as they should.

Monitoring is not a panacea. If bombs and bullets are flying, as they were often doing in the Troubles in the North, or there is all out rioting, monitors could potentially see some of what is happening and record it, hopefully from a safe distance, but their presence is unlikely to make a jot of difference to how people behave. Accompaniment of people at risk is another part of this general approach in what can be collectively called ‘Unarmed Civilian Protection”. This whole area however has much potential in situations of racial tension and possible attacks.

The neutrality or impartiality of monitors is an issue. For example, monitors could be deployed in situations of racial tension, attack or potential attack where the intention is to help protect those seen as racially different or at risk. However in this situation the monitors would presumably record what they saw, without fear or favour, about race rioters or demonstrators, police, any counter-protesters etc. Thus ‘on the ground’ they would be impartial but the reason for them being there would be from a desire to help avoid racial trouble or attacks. On parading issues in the North some monitoring organisations were essentially solidarity organisations with one side or another and in these cases they were not ‘impartial’ on the ground. But in any case there is no such thing as ‘value free’ monitoring – or indeed any other form of third party intervention.

The extent to which monitors can intervene, and in what way, also varies considerably They are not mediators but, depending on the model involved, they might take on a limited intervention mode, e.g. suggesting a course of action to police or other parties to de-escalate a situation or avoid problems arising. Mediation Northern Ireland in its involvement had a model of passing information up the line and possible intervention by senior people. Monitor training emphasises that monitors remain human beings and if they feel that, as a human being, they need to do something which perhaps steps outside of their monitoring role then they should do it (e.g. offering protection to someone scared or at risk, if this isn’t already ‘within role’) – and any repercussions can be picked up on later.

The diversity of monitoring as an approach is reflected in INNATE’s photo album on the topic at https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/albums/72157629555375796/ which includes a listing of written resources in the introduction at the start (click on ‘Read more’ and scroll down). INNATE continues to be involved in promoting and training in monitoring and is happy to try to answer any queries people have, or point them in the right direction. It is a field of endeavour which, fortunately or unfortunately given its role in relation to low level conflict, will continue to deserve attention and action.