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.

Editorial: ‘They’ haven’t gone away, you know

Editorials, Nonviolent News, ,

Although coming at it from very different angles, both peace activists of the nonviolent persuasion and paramilitaries view the legitimacy of state sanctioned violence as inadequate. Those of the nonviolent persuasion do not go along with the legitimacy of state sanctioned lethal force whereas paramilitaries feel that military-type action outside of the state is legitimate. Nonviolent activists would view both state sanctioned violence and paramilitary violence as immoral and/or unnecessary.

That is not to say that state forces should not be held to higher account than paramilitaries. In the North, the announcement of a long promised tribunal of enquiry to look at the circumstances of Pat Finucane’s killing had a reaction from some on the unionist and loyalist side that this was favouritism to republicans and discrimination against other victims. Leaving aside the fact that Pat Finucane as a lawyer represented loyalists as well as republicans, the state had long ago promised an enquiry, a promise it continually reneged on, and the particular circumstances of his murder – with very considerable issues of both state collusion and parliamentary ‘fingering’ of him – fully justifies such an enquiry.

More general questions of the legacy of violence remain, by paramilitaries as well as state. How do we deal with the very real issues for survivors and families of victims? Certainly not by sweeping it all under the carpet as the last British Conservative government tried to do with its Legacy Act (in order to protect former British soldiers and the state). The extent to which current Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn is moving away from that model is still being defined – and challenged.

However paramilitarism and militarism are still major issues in the North. Small republican paramilitary groups still exist and could pose a threat to individuals but they have very little support. However some loyalist paramilitary infrastructure has continued unbroken through the peace process and beyond; it is estimated that there are still well over ten thousand members of loyalist paramilitaries which is a lot – the PSNI has 6,300 officers and 2,200 support staff, in total certainly below the number of loyalist paramilitaries.

The extent to which loyalist paramilitaries are involved in extortion (such as protection rackets) and drug dealing varies but is very significant and a continuing blight on the North. There have been various attempts, more carrots than sticks, to encourage paramilitaries out of crime and militarism but they have largely been unsuccessful and there is also a certain amount of incredulity that, two and a half decades after the Good Friday Agreement, they still exist and still recruit. It is estimated that up to a third of organised crime has paramilitary links. The carrots and sticks need to have a time limit.

The failure of loyalism to gain political traction, in the way Sinn Féin did for republicanism, is certainly regarded as one factor in loyalist paramilitaries having a niche – while the DUP has often had an ambiguous relationship with militant and military loyalism, it cannot be regarded as adequately representing working class loyalism (e.g. on school selection where working class Protestant boys are the lowest achievers). But other factors are simply power, greed, and fear for the future of Northern Ireland.

A recent independent pro-unionist report from the ‘Northern Ireland Development Group’ addressed this whole issue. There are difficulties, obviously, and the report called for more carrots and sticks. Some of the authors stated “A clear distinction between ex-combatants, community workers and criminals is needed to bolster loyalists who are trying to move on, and to distinguish between them and those who want to use fear to maintain their own reputations and self-serving advantage.” (Irish Times 11/10/24). The attention given to the Loyalist Communities Council, representing the views of a variety of paramilitary groups, by some ministers has also caused anger; however it should be a question of what attention is given to them but whether what they say is justified – and you cannot attempt to ‘bring people in from the cold’ by ignoring them.

On a wider scale we need to challenge both paramilitarism and militarism. They might not be two sides of the same coin but they are both stuck in the same hole. Paramilitary and guerrilla fighters (a k a ‘terrorists) typically inflict harm and death in multiples of ten or a hundred; there are occasional exceptions such as 9/11 when the unit was thousands but that is not typical. Deaths and injuries from state forces are typically numbered in ten of thousands or even millions. And yet most of the time people accept the actions of states, even ones as egregious as Israel’s in Gaza where it has slaughtered upwards of 50,000 people and probably caused the deaths of several times that through the effects of the onslaught on health, nutrition, homelessness and fear.

Paramilitarism takes a military model and uses it for its own purposes within a state. Militarism threatens the globe, directly and indirectly through death, misuse of resources, its major contribution to global heating and pollution, and so on including the very real risk of nuclear annihilation. Humanity needs to move on. There are alternatives but militarism, with its associated symbols of statehood, appeal to politicians (and many other people besides) and they fail to even comprehend that there are alternatives, or examine what these are.

The possibilities of nonviolence are endless. They do require work and people but their costs would be tiny compared to the cost of armies and militarism. When will we start to learn?

Editorial: The logic of war, the logic of peace

Editorials, Nonviolent News,

War is generally an attempt by states and semi-state entities to beat their opponent into submission using violent means. There are exceptions to this such as where engaging in warfare is undertaken without expectation of victory but to raise a flag and make a point – think 1916 Rising or the Hamas attack from Gaza on Israel in October 2024. Those violent means can vary greatly along with the extent to which the so-called ‘laws of war’ are adhered to. There can be great suffering for both civilians and soldiers on all sides not just through injury, pain and death but through the dislocation caused by war including starvation, lack of shelter, fear, disruption of education and life chances for young people and children, and so on. War and preparation for war is also a major contributor to global heating and pollution.

War is an evil, mechanical dinosaur which should have been decommissioned by humanity long ago. Instead we have states and non-state parties engaging in, or preparing for war. This is the 21st century. We must wonder what humanity has learnt given that there are so many different alternatives to war available through mediation, conciliation, nonviolent action of many kinds, and other actions by citizens and states. But both power (e.g. USA) and powerlessness (e.g. Hamas in Gaza) can convince people that violence is the way to go to achieve their goals.

The launch of Lex Innocentium 21st Century is a very welcome initiative in relation to war (see https://lexinnocentium21.ie/ and item with other links in the news section of this issue). Cáin Adomnáin (Adomnán’s Law) of 697 CE was arguably the first attempt in western Europe to protect civilians in war – there are numerous other examples from other cultures in antiquity around the world. We have to question and undermine the very basis of war. The new Lex Innocentium 21st Century project does indeed take Cáin Adomnáin forward into the 21st century.

The basis of war is varied and multi-faceted. The military-industrial complex is complex with its tentacles everywhere. The Irish government has been promoting military production, incredibly for a country which suffered a small, guerrilla war only a few decades back. Northern Ireland has already had significant military production. There are big profits to be made, and no industry is more corrupt. Many politicians want to look big and strong and one way they think they can do that is by bolstering their country’s armed forces both because they may believe in such strength but also because it will reflect strength back on them.

But putting your faith in the military and war is a sword of Damocles. Large scale investment in the military tends to lead to the feeling they should be used, not just to threaten but for actual war. And once you start a war you are likely to escalate it, cf Israel, Gaza and Lebanon. And every penny or cent spent on the military is a penny or cent not available for positive purposes in society. Meanwhile potential or actual ‘enemies’ see your military investment and seek to match it, through feelings of insecurity and threat. And then you respond to their military spending and an arms race is begun. Belief in military ‘strength’ can lead to economic, democratic and social weakness with the extolling of militarism having many problems including machismo and its corollary of male violence.

Clem McCartney in his piece in the last issue of Nonviolent News analysed the hole the world is currently in regarding conflict. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/2024/09/02/rreadings-in-nonviolence-when-will-we-ever-learn-reflections-on-a-debate/ This suggests some ways forward on the international stage. And the usual advice about being in a hole is to stop digging. Unfortunately the world shows no sign at the moment of emerging from that hole or even wanting to do so.

The situation for the people of Sudan is extremely bleak with no thought given by the respective vying war lords to the suffering and starvation of citizens. The Russia-Ukraine war is an unfortunate classical case of relative stalemate with lives and money being thrown into not just a hole but a bottomless pit. Israel thinks it can achieve peace through all out war on its opponents when all it is doing is perpetuating the conflict; you achieve a permanent end to a conflict by turning enemies into friends, not by trying to obliterate them. Meanwhile other states and people back who they want to support, exacerbating the conflicts.

A groundswell of popular opinion is usually needed to stop a state or states engaging in warmaking. Lex Innocentium 21st Century is one such initiative. The original Cáin Adomnáin did not actually seek to stop war as opposed to limiting warfare and protecting ‘innocent’ people. Hopefully thirteen centuries later we are realising that no one deserves to die in war and that, in an era of high tech and nuclear weapons, the stakes are too high to be engaging in war at all; the choice is between disarmament or destruction. The vast majority of those dying in modern warfare are civilians.

There are alternatives. World economic justice and resource sharing needs to be part of it. Reform of the United Nations is another part. The world – and the Irish government in particular – could pay attention to the thinking involved in Article 29 of Bunreacht na hÉireann which states that “Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.” This was written in 1937 and could be considerably extrapolated form in relation to the possibilities of dealing with conflict which have developed since then.

And Irish politicians paying attention to their own constitution would be a start; while they sometimes make positive noises their actions and inactions are generally negative. The recent information about flights carrying military equipment to Israel through Irish airspace is a case in point, and the government steadfastly refuses to search US military or military-contracted planes using Shannon airport. The approach seems to be to ignore western militarist links and to stall taking any action, all of which is incompatible with neutrality.

Escalation has been taking place regarding violence and poor relationships worldwide. But détente, disaramament and de-escalation can take place; it did take place very considerably following the end of the Russian Communist system and control in Eastern Europe but this was not followed up with new forms of cooperation internationally to cement that breakthrough. States fund war and preparation for war; they do not seem keen on funding or putting their thinking into peace. But the building of trust and justice can lead to an escalation in peace actions and disarmament,

The world has global heating to deal with; it cannot afford in any way – ecologically, financially, socially – to be distracted by wars and high level military confrontations. The pursuit of military solutions and ‘security’ (which is really a form of insecurity) is a chimera which distracts from the very urgent needs of the world for an end of global heating and for global justice. Yet the world, including ‘the West’, fiddles about while the world burns.

Editorials: The race against racism, Not being neutral on neutrality

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

The race against racism

The ugliness of racism has been all too evident in Ireland over the summer with slightly different manifestations in the two jurisdictions on the island. In the Republic the now established norm, requiring only a small number of perpetrators, is to burn and destroy buildings which are perceived to be, or actually are, for refugees and international protection migrants. In the North, because of the legacy and presence of sectarian violence and paramilitarism, there are more physical attacks directly on people because of their skin colour or perceived religion (not necessarily correct in relation to the latter as when a restaurant owner of Nepalese Hindu origin, employing ten people, was burnt out and ‘Muslims out’ daubed on the walls). We are lucky there were no racist killings recently.

The tie up between racist attacks and far right activists is all too plain to see through social media and ‘facts on the ground’. In the North there is also the connection to some loyalist paramilitaries; racism is present in Catholic/Nationalist communities in the North but nationalism has the advantage, in relation to racism, of being at least theoretically inclusive – ‘everyone’ is, or is invited to be, part of the Irish nation (the reality can, of course, be rather different). Loyalism has the disadvantage in relation to racism of being more exclusive, ‘what we have we hold’. Racism and sectarianism are perhaps not evil twins but certainly evil cousins or even step-siblings.

Ireland, the Republic, has undergone perhaps the fastest transition in Europe from a very high level of people born in the country to a situation of around a fifth of people being born outside the state. It has been good for the country in a variety of ways and the Irish experience of emigration has, until relatively recently, meant that most people appreciated that people had excellent reasons, in some cases survival, for coming and would make a positive contribution to society.

What racists and the far right have sought to do is to exploit two things: unfair distribution of resources (housing and facilities) and incidents where migrants have been involved in violence. In the case of the latter, it does not matter whether mental illness or other mitigating factors are involved, it is a coat on which to hang their right wing and violent ideology. Inequality and poverty are exploited by racists and the far right to scapegoat migrants when the issue is both long term and shorter term deficiencies in governmental planning and action.

Of course governmental policies are not the cause or source of racism but they can exacerbate it. The Irish government has learnt, hopefully, that depriving a local community of its only hotel to use to accommodate migrants is not a good move as it deprives local people of needed facilities. Of course there is a major housing crisis in the Republic, especially Dublin, but it is due primarily to economic success. And who will do the jobs Irish people may no longer wish to do or fill in the gaps in health and social care systems? Migrants of course.

There are many things which civil society can do in relation to countering racism, and most are being done though there is always the need for more people to be involved. One is get to know and support migrants in integrating with local society while allowing them to retain what they wish of their own identity. A second is educating, in a broad sense, people about why migrants have come and what they bring. Racists sometimes use facile slogans such as “Ireland is full” – yes, there are issues in relation to housing, which are fixable, but ‘full’? There were still more people on the island before the Great Famine and there are many countries far more densely populated than Ireland.

A related matter, in terms of education, is to help people be aware of the history and cultures of the places where migrants come from. ‘We’ can have a very insular view of culture and development – do we know, for example, about the role of India in the development of mathematics https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/01/hidden-story-ancient-india-west-maths-astronomy-historians or the role of China in innovating so much over the millennia? Our Western-centric view of civilisation is not only false but dangerous in giving ‘us’ western Europeans an inflated view of our own importance.

Criticism has been voiced of the police/PSNI failure to take a more pro-active stand in relation to racist attacks. Regarding violence in Belfast at the start of August, Patrick Corrigan of Amnesty International said “An unlawful procession, including masked men clearly intent on violence, marauded across the most ethnically diverse part of Belfast, attacking communities and businesses as they went – and the PSNI did not stop them. There are serious questions for the police, who publicly declared they were prepared, but then failed to protect already vulnerable communities.” While such situations are not easy for the police to deal with both imagination and firmness are needed and many people from ethnic minorities in Belfast and other parts of the North, especially Antrim, have been left in fear (and may leave in fear).

In times of racist violence there are also actions which civil society can, and does, take. Expressing solidarity with neighbours and giving our presence at anti-racist and inclusivist demonstrations are two such things. Actively standing out in the street, and intervening to help stop racist violence when tensions are high and things are actually happening in places or people being targetted, is more risky but necessary (and took place in Belfast recently). Monitoring and accompaniment may be appropriate tools but so can active intervention to form protective lines or challenge violent behaviour. The problem is also that anti-racists cannot be everywhere and racists can target anywhere, or anyone, in the middle of the night or at least when no one else is around. Nonviolent training and tools are potentially vital in these kinds of situations particularly when some anti-racists can also engage in antagonising behaviour such as shouting abuse at racists – this merely ups the tension and potential for violence.

Local and European elections in the Republic did not show the far right and racists to be a significant force but they are there, and through violence then can exert a felt presence they could not through more peaceful and democratic means. We cannot ‘root out’ racists since they are part of the community. What we can do is educate people in the realities of the world and the contribution migrants make but also point out the relatively small number of refugee seekers coming to Ireland – which also needs workers.

The race against racism is not a sprint but a marathon. There always has been racism in Ireland and Irish people themselves have been both subject to, and perpetrators of, it. We need strategies and tactics for a long haul which will show the humanity of migrants and allow Irish people to enjoy and benefit from what they bring.

Not being neutral on neutrality

The lead news item in this issue reveals just how close Irish neutrality in any meaningful form is to being binned. Micheál Martin in particular has been gunning (sic) to fully join Ireland with EU and NATO militarism – and regarding NATO, Ireland is definitely a ‘fellow traveller’ – full NATO membership may not be on the cards but participation at a high level is possible without that. It is remarkable how far Ireland has travelled from the principles held by former leaders, including Eamon de Valera and Frank Aiken – ironically both of the same political party as Micheál Martin.

The homogenisation of EU military and foreign policy leaves limited scope for manoeuvre but there is considerable scope for action. Ireland has been more outspoken on the massacres happening in Gaza while it has been tardy in actually taking action, and has refused, despite some soundings, to inspect US military flights stopping over at Shannon Airport. Of course as a neutral country there should be no military flights there but the craven subservience to the USA in refusing to inspect military planes is an insult not just to peace but to any idea of Irish sovereignty.

The Irish government has consistently refused – including at the (so called) Forum on International Security Policy in 2023 – to look at possibilities of developing and extending Irish neutrality. The sky is the limit to the role Ireland could play for peace in the world, and as a relatively rich country it has the wherewithal to engage meaningfully on many different issues and situations while avoiding an imperialist “we have the answers” approach. The opportunity is there and the history of Irish contributions to peace sets a great precedent. It is the lack of imagination which is particularly galling along with the willingness to back the former imperialist powers in NATO and the EU. It is a very sad situation.

Editorial: Nonviolent alternatives

Editorials, Nonviolent News

Viable nonviolent alternatives exist in many situations where popular opinion thinks only of armies and violence. And armies tend to be thought of not only as state power but symbols of the state so it is no wonder about their status in most countries. The powers that be are generally incapable of thinking outside of the lack-of-imagination box which constrains the possibilities they perceive. Why did the Irish government’s so-called* Consultative Forum on International Security Policy in 2023 refuse to even refer to or consider aspects of nonviolent civilian defence? Basically because it falls outside of their knowledge set. To them, it simply does not exist. * For reasoning on the use of the term ‘so-called’ see https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/53003786126/in/dateposted/

The recent webinar which INNATE shared with FOR England & Scotland, and Cymdeithas y Cymod in Wales, looked at some of these issues in relation to one particular challenge, the war in Ukraine. The webinar was with Majken Sørensen who shared on her knowledge of nonviolent resistance and on her book “Pacifism Today: A Dialogue about Alternatives to War in Ukraine”. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/2024/04/02/the-possibility-of-nonviolent-resistance-in-the-contemporary-world/ https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/2022/04/01/nonviolent-resistance-to-invasion-occupation-and-coups-detat/

Majken Sørensen emphasised the extent to which our knowledge of the possibilities of nonviolent resistance has increased in recent times and Chenoweth and Stefan’s work shows nonviolent struggle is more likely to succeed than violent struggle. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/2022/11/03/the-effectiveness-of-violence-and-nonviolence/ While morality is important, Majken said, it can be backed up with statistics today that nonviolent resistance works. And the fact that nonviolent resistance can be effective in tough situations was illustrated by examples from Nazi-occupied Europe in the Second World War.

However Majken also said that there are risks for activists opposing war – and soldiers consider risks normal. However not everyone can take the same risks (because of their personal situations) and it can be problematic if those taking the biggest risks are considered the heroes of nonviolence (when everyone has a part to play). There was much more to the discussion than be covered here though one point was the possibility of prominent figures, such as senior statespersons or church people, going to war situations, protesting and intervening.

A comment made after the webinar was that “Non-violence is important because it restrains escalation and greater polarisation. Violence and the threat of violence encourages polarisation and escalation and often there is no way back. It presents the issues as black and white and demonizes the other. It does not allow for some element of truth in their analysis of the situation and does not allow any doubts that one’s own analysis might be partial. This was evident in the lead up to Russia’s special operation in Ukraine. In contrast, a non-violence approach often starts with recognising the humanity of the other and the willingness to engage with them and consider their perspectives, while making clear one’s own position, principles and values.

“And following the law of least contest, it is difficult to move to a lower level of contestation and easy to move to a higher level. Sometimes non-violent activists are seeking a cessation of violence and compromise between warring parties and they can help to achieve that by showing their own awareness of the humanity of both side. Compare that with a power-broker trying to knock the heads together of both sides, often resulting in a settlement which proves unsustainable. Of course non-violent activists are often making demands and are not seeking compromise, but even here, respect for the other is often at the heart of effective non-violence.” These factors are also critical points about nonviolence.

We have a job to do in making the possibilities of nonviolence and nonviolent resistance known in all levels of society and in relation to all levels of society and international affairs. You might think we should be knocking at open doors given the cost of violence and militarism, human and financial. But in fact doors are firmly shut due to adherence to status quo thinking and a lack of imagination.

Perhaps because he is well known in cultural circles (otherwise they might not have published such transgressive thoughts…), the Irish Times published a letter by Gabriel Rosenstock asking simply “Why not abolish the Army? They did it in Costa Rica and they’re doing fine without it.” (25th June 2024). Indeed, why not……….the writer of this letter (and much more besides) is clearly not lacking in imagination.

INNATE is happy to help anyone explore nonviolent possibilities at any level. AVP, the Alternatives to Violence Project, does an excellent job at the personal and interpersonal level in looking at the ‘transforming power’ of what is basically nonviolence. Community groups are often caught up with trying to provide viable paths for young people towards confidence and positive achievement and away from confrontation or crime. Mediation as a methodology has made great strides in civil society but it and its sibling, conciliation (a more general term for work on communication, discussion and understanding in situations of conflict, potential conflict and strife) seem to have been largely forgotten in the international arena. But at every level, interpersonal, societal and international, there is little sign of creative thinking in dealing with issues of security, justice, or the needs of others.

The Natasha O’Brien case in the Republic (a suspended sentence for an off duty soldier badly injuring and beating a woman unconscious who had simply asked him to stop shouting homophobic slurs) shows just how far we have to travel. This was an example of gross interpersonal and sexist violence, and symbolic of a wider malaise. While the state may deal with violent offenders in the armed forces, is there a will to deal with wider issues including machismo and masculine attitudes to violence in general? That is a much larger cultural and societal issue which may be touched on at times in relationship education but is an elephant in the room. (See downloadable Masculinity and Violence poster at https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/posters/ )

One workshop which INNATE promotes is on exploring nonviolent tactics. This can be facilitated by INNATE but the DIY version is also online at https://innatenonviolence.org/workshops/workshop1.shtml This tries to broaden and deepen an understanding of what it is possible to do with nonviolence before personalising possibilities (what could you do?) and then brainstorming on a particular campaign. It is a straightforward process to arrive at new possibilities for our campaigning on anything.

‘The world’ seems hell-bent (sic) on pursuing militarist and violent solutions where militarism and violence are part of the problem or even the main part of the problem. And we know well that hell is traditionally portrayed as hot. As mentioned in the webinar with Majken Sørensen, the environment is very much a cost of militarism apart from the fact that hot and armed conflict detracts and distracts from the possibilities of dealing with climate heating which are so urgent – and climate change is itself becoming a major cause of conflict.

There is a steep learning curve or curve about learning to climb. We have the tools to change but it is getting them known and utilised that is a major issue.

– – – – –

Editorials: MADness, The Law of the Innocents

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , , , , , ,

Humanity and MADness

The risk of self-destruction is a real one for humanity. This is not the aim of people’s actions but the result, applying to both war and global heating. It is not that we rationally want to destroy ourselves, literally or figuratively, but that this is the possible result of our actions and policies. During the Cold War there was the doctrine – policy – of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): NATO (the USA and it allies) and Warsaw Pact (Soviet Russia and its allies) threatened each other with nuclear war which would have wiped out many cities and regions of the northern hemisphere and, ironically given global heating, brought about a nuclear winter which would in turn have wiped out the vast bulk of humanity through cold, hunger and radiation-related illnesses.

MAD was a threat; attack us and this is what you will get. But unlike conventional warfare which aims to destroy the enemy and only the enemy (not factoring in so-called ‘friendly fire’, ‘collateral damage’ to civilians, and retaliation), the result of MAD would be, as the name suggests, mutual destruction. There is a myth that this ‘kept the peace’ (we would strongly dispute that it did) and avoided war because the stakes were not only high but suicidal. This ignores the very real risks involved at the time such as with the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 or false alarms when warning systems indicated one side was being attacked. The balance of terror involved in MAD was itself a form of madness and a very real risk to the future of the billions of individual people who make up humanity.

Unfortunately we live in another era of MADness, in relation to nuclear warfare but through ecological destruction too. We seem to have learned little about how to deal with threats. It is as if we do not want to know, and to some extent we do not. Considering global heating which is a threat to the whole world, fauna (including humanity) and flora combined. We know where we are going in general terms – if not precisely what temperature increase we face – and we know the likely catastrophic effects – but we seem incapable of taking the necessary radical actions which would minimise the risk. Yes, we will do a certain amount but not so much as to discomfort ourselves currently. It is rather like a scary film with a train hurtling towards destruction down the line; we know where the brake is, we know how to use it but we are unwilling to apply it because it might make for a bumpier ride in the here and now. There is an analogy here between the real prospect of global heating armageddon and the high risk (over time) of nuclear armageddon,

And the risks of nuclear warfare have certainly not gone away. Conflict and mediation theory are clear; it is through a process of discussion and building understanding that we can make progress. Threats and counter-threats simply escalate the problems. Of course there are people or countries who do harmful things (including very much those in ‘the west’), and these need dealt with, but how do we deal with them and end cycles of violence and oppression? The Irish constitution commits the southern-and-western state to the pacific resolution of international disputes; there are only occasional signs that this is a policy as opposed to an ignored semi-aspiration.

The current war in Ukraine is a scenario reminiscent of the First World War’s death and attrition on both sides. Neither side feels they can give way. Both sides feel justified in their actions, and they are unwilling to sacrifice their sacrifices to date (move away from continued sacrifice of lives and resources because of the lives and resources already ploughed into the warfare). This is a recipe for ongoing disaster. In invading Ukraine, Russia thought it would easily gain territory and solve a problem (its military security); in doing so it created a monster. But NATO and the west, in expanding eastwards in Russia and clearly not regarding meaningfully Russia’s fears, was instrumental in the creation of that monster. We are now in the grips of a limited form of MADness. Lives and money are being thrown away on both sides in the Russia-Ukraine war in a situation of attrition just like the First World War and its trench warfare but with modern weapons and technology. It is a form of ‘chicken’, racing towards each other at speed in motorised transport, in a macho confrontation which is inimical to anyone’s wellbeing.

However the greater form of MADness is lurking in the wings. Nuclear weapons have not gone away. NATO has no doctrine of avoiding first use of nuclear weapons. Neither does Russia and Putin has upped the ante by mentioning the use of nuclear weapons on more than one occasion in the last couple of years in the context of the war in Ukraine. This would presumably be ‘tactical’ (battlefield) nuclear weapons, i.e. ones with smaller explosive yields, but this would or could open the way to all out nuclear warfare. The Deputy Commander of the Air Force and Air Defence Forces of Belarus, Leonid Davidovich, has stated that the Belarusian military is ‘theoretically and practically’ ready for ‘actions with non-strategic nuclear weapons’.

On the positive side of things, the vast majority of countries in the world reject the concept and use of nuclear weapons, a position which was eventually codified in the 2021 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which explicitly bans the use, development, testing, production, acquisition, possession, stockpiling, transferring, receiving, threat of use and deployment of nuclear weapons. This treaty has been totally ignored by the nuclear powers and their fellow travellers; so much, then, in terms of respect for the international community and developing peace.

Nuclear weapons are held as a WMD/Weapon of Mass Destruction that countries can use in extremis. But the problem is not only, if used, the unleashing of everything in this Pandora’s box; the problem is that, when holding nuclear weapons, others then wish to hold them as a counterweight. This is the case with India and Pakistan, frequently at military loggerheads. All of this leads to increased international instability.

The Economist, a well informed but in many ways conservative journal, gave its analysis of nuclear weapons in its 6th April 2024 issue entitled “The balancing act gets harder” (along with a satirical graphic of Xi, Putin and Biden barely balancing on a tightrope held up by nuclear missiles). It considers various aspects of the situation. If we take The Economist article as representative of a certain important strain of western thought on the matter, there are some startling omissions in it. What it does not consider is how nuclear de-escalation and disarmament can happen; this is a bit like wondering what to do about a fire without calling the fire brigade. There is no mention of trust building, treaty making, mediative and communication processes. There is simply a detailed description of the mess nuclear issues are in and what options are considered to exist within the framework of nuclear deterrence as understood by western power holders. Nuclear disarmament has to happen for the long term security of our small globe; we have been lucky so far in avoiding nuclear war (and luck has played a part) but do we imagine we can be lucky in perpetuity? That is a nonsense assumption.

A second related issue in The Economist’s coverage is that there is no real analysis of the dynamics of arms escalation, and of why Putin and Xi are maintaining and/or building up their nuclear arsenals. One side responds to another. The USA is modernising and developing its nuclear capacity but this is not understood in the west as a problem issue for other countries, a culturally specific omission of great importance (i.e. it is a very pro-western view). Of course Russia and China may want to have strong nuclear capacity to throw their weight around, but is that any different to the USA throwing its weight around? Or indeed ‘little’ (by comparison) Britain retaining its nuclear weapons because it wants to still play with the big boys?

There is also no mention whatsoever in The Economist article of the 2021 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which has been supported by the vast majority of the world, including Ireland, but not the nuclear powers and their fellow travellers. The nuclear powers ignore the developing consensus internationally against such weapons of mass destruction. While the Treaty may be aspirational it is through aspirations that we move forward. If the Economist piece is representative of western powerholding opinion then we are in trouble.

There was a slogan in the peace movement of forty years ago that ‘Unilateralists are multilateralists who mean it’. In other words, if we wait around for ‘everyone’ to agree on nuclear disarmament then it will never happen. We need countries to be brave enough to say ‘We will start the ball rolling….’ Nye Bevan, a founder of the National Health Service in Britain, opposed the abolition of nuclear weapons by the UK on the basis that it would mean “going naked into the conference chamber”, i.e. losing a bargaining chip. But someone has to start any process and those familiar with nonviolent tactics will know that voluntary nakedness can actually be a very strong and effective tactic in situations of injustice and political tension; in voluntarily choosing vulnerability in this way it shows real strength (it has various connotations in different cultures which can be part of this). We are not advocating literal nakedness here but going nuclear-naked.

Safety does not grow from aggression and threat. Safety comes from people being comfortable with each other and this in turn needs justice and equality, relatively speaking. Belligerent words (mentioning the possibility of engaging directly in the war in Ukraine) and actions (increased supply of weapons to Ukraine) does not deal with the conflict. Wars are ended by victory and defeat or by talking, or both.

We are currently in our world, northern hemisphere certainly, in a period of MADness. We cannot continue this way, for the wellbeing and survival of humanity. We need a different form of MADness – Mutually Assured De-escalation, which perhaps we could label SANity – Simple Action on Needs, dealing with the real needs of the world which are so pressing rather than adding additional worries. We need a process of dialogue and actions which take us to safety and cooperation to deal with the urgent needs of the world in relation to global heating and ecological sustainability, as well as much greater global justice, and allow for people to feel secure and unthreatened.

MADness or SANity – we have a choice.

The Law of the Innocents, 21st century

There are different positive approaches or responses to war, and there can seem to be a dichotomy between those who a) refuse to participate or back war in any form, and those who b) try to limit and/or deal with the effects and extent of war through measures such as extending ‘laws of war’ and so on. In the first category are people who could be labelled believers in nonviolence or nonviolent activists and, in increasingly archaic and abused language, ‘pacifists’. In the second category are bodies like the Red Cross/Crescent, addressing the effects of war and other disasters, and activists who have brought about the banning, in international law, of landmines and cluster munitions, or indeed those who have worked for nuclear weapons non-proliferation and for bodies who work in early intervention and addressing the causes or war.

Life is not usually very simple and different people will take different approaches as to where to address issues of war and mass violence, or stated colloquially, there are different strokes for different folks. There are many different factors in war happening including greed, injustice, imperialist (sic) attitudes, issues of resources, xenophobia and nationalism, as well as the well of history and geography. Some of those who oppose war in totality, category a) above, may get involved as a pragmatic choice in working on restricting what is considered legitimate in war so that the effects of war are not so terrible, and warfare becomes more circumscribed.

Wars will continue as long as nonviolent alternatives are not available or are not seen. It can certainly be argued that most people’s approach to mass violence and war is a blind spot; wars are entered for reasons that are considered ‘worthy’ – however mistaken they may be – but the fact that the war in question is subsequently proven to have negative consequences – think Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya among many others – does not bring about a thoroughgoing reassessment of views and a more critical approach ‘the next time’. This is despite clear research which shows nonviolent struggle is more likely to be effective (Chenoweth and Stefan, 2011, see e.g. https://www.innatenonviolence.org/readings/2020_03.shtml and https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/2022/04/01/nonviolent-resistance-to-invasion-occupation-and-coups-detat/ )

All approaches to undermining war and aspects of war as a legitimate and legal form of action are welcome. The project on The Law of the Innocents, 21st Century, is one such enterprise and deserves support. As those who are familiar with the history of the Troubles in Northern Ireland are aware, there can be problems in defining who is ‘innocent’ and who is not, who deserves sympathy for deprivation and loss (including loss of life of self or loved ones) and who either deserves less sympathy or none at all. The nonviolent approach is to say that all those who suffer are victims; Russian soldiers in Ukraine may be fighting on the side of an aggressor but if wounded or killed they are also victims. The new law states that “Given the indefensible nature of modern warfare, defence can no longer justify engagement in war or military aggression of any kind OR the military industrial complex, including the arms industry and all other associated institutions. In its protections, Lex Innocentium, 21st Century, renders modern warfare impossible without breaking this law, and necessarily rejects the Just War Theory.”

We therefore should not be too literal in our understanding of who the ‘Law of the Innocents’ might apply to in 2024 CE, more than 1300 years later after the original. Undermining the credibility of war – which includes its tie up with the state and state identity – is a major but necessary task, and all projects and critiques of war as a viable and legitimate form of action are very welcome. The Law of the Innocents, 21st century, also draws on Irish history and is part of an honourable tradition in Ireland of rejecting and seeking to ameliorate the effects of war. Various cultures around the world in antiquity had similar attempts to impose restrictions on warfare. Including the earth in the categories covered in the “21st century” version is of course a necessary and welcome move; the military are major polluters and carbon contributors even without the devastation of war which wreaks total havoc with the environment.

Editorials: Peace and global inequality, The politics of threat or trust

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

Peace and global inequality

The world is shaping up for some tough times since, on top of all the existing conflicts and disputes, global heating will make many people’s lives literally hell on earth – through oven like heat and drought, flooding, displacement, exile, increased poverty and precariousness, danger, and, if they do reach somewhere else to live, then in many cases rejection, deportation or at best a tough reception. And Covid was a straw that broke many backs around the world.

A UN human development report shows a growing gulf between rich and poor countries and portrays this as a ‘recipe for much darker future’; “the pandemic, conflict, globalisation and populism have combined to disproportionately affect lower-income countries” https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/mar/13/growth-of-gulf-between-rich-and-poor-countries-recipe-for-much-darker-future-says-un?CMP=share_btn_url and https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2023-24 The gap was narrowing until 2020 but has been widening since Covid began then.

One feature of conflict and poverty worldwide is migration. It is is is interesting to see the frequent hugely negative reaction to refugees and asylum seekers in rich western, Christian or post-Christian countries. This is highly ironic given that the founder of Christianity, Jesus, was, according to the Christian bible, himself a refugee in Egypt as a young baby with his parents; so where are the much vaunted ‘Christian’ values of the west? These are often claimed by nationalist politicians in many countries whether they are individually Christian or not as a euphemism for ‘white European’. Most refugees find a new existence – and it is sometimes just an existence – in neighbouring countries to that from which they have been ejected or fled. Those coming to ‘the west’ including the EU face an increasingly tough time, if they are able to get there at all.

But the solution to any perceived refugee crisis is staring people in the face; increased global equality and increased global peace. This sounds highly grandiose, like waving a magic wand to make things good. But if just a fraction of what was spent on the military and the arms trade went instead for human security and sustainable development worldwide then there could be a remarkable difference. That is in everyone’s interest, rich and poor countries in different ways. Conflict is also stirred and exacerbated by (lack of) access to resources (and by resource extraction) whereas greater global equality and human security would also lead to less demand for weapons and less inclination to war and warfare.

Peace and greater global equality are inextricably linked and, tragically, peace is also dependent on limiting and effectively dealing with global heating, something which is not happening in the way that it should. Global heating and inequality both feed into conflict – and likely to lead to violent conflict – in a very direct way. ‘Resource wars’, particularly over water, may be an increasing feature globally as the 21st century progresses. We already see, for example, how Israel uses and abuses Palestinian water resources. The EU, as it develops its army and arms capacity, will be a major player in this big boy militarism; it is a total illusion to imagine that it will not throw its weight around. This will be a new imperialism among both former imperialist powers and others – including Ireland if current directions continue.

We have to resist militarist developments. We have to curb global heating as fast as we possibly can. We

have to work for greater global equality. And Ireland has the opportunity to move from the vestiges of neutrality to being a real, enthusiastic, and effective, player worldwide on all these issues but not if current trends continue – the stand which the Irish government has taken on Gaza does not mean it is not still a slavish advocate of EU militarisation and NATO collaboration.

Replacing the politics of threat and fear with the politics of trust

That the world is currently going to hell in a handcart is difficult to deny. Rampant global warming is accompanied by new wars and increased tensions globally. It is easy to feel totally powerless in such a situation. But ‘we’ – the forces of peace and environmentalism – are not powerless; we may not be powerful like warmongering governments and alliances, or fossil fuel companies, but ‘we’ are many and they are few. It is a matter of realising and operationalising our power, including through building alliances locally and globally.

There is a problem with the term ‘nonviolence’ since it starts with a negative. The problem exists in other languages, sometimes even more so than in English. April Carter likened it to the way that what we now know as a ‘car’ was initially called a ‘horseless carriage’, i.e. it was first of all described for what it was not before a more neutral term emerged. Now whether the dominance of the internal combustion engine is a good thing in relation to transport is another question but the point is nevertheless valid. We are trying to build an approach which will become the norm. One of the suggested terms for nonviolence, though it only encapsulates one aspect of it, is ‘relentless persistence’

We have often pointed out the way that violence and nonviolence are judged differently, using different measurements. Nonviolence is quickly judged to have failed. While particularly egregious wars sometimes lead to changes in behaviour, in the longer term lessons are seldom learnt. The slogan of the First World War being ‘the war to end all wars’ was not only nonsense but the victors’ behaviour towards the defeated Germany, and the failure to invest in new systems such as the League of Nations, led to another conflagration.

Chenoweth and Stefan’s research showing the relative effectiveness of nonviolent struggle compared to violent is open to debate including some of their detailed conclusions (it is questionable whether the IRA’s campaign in the Troubles in Northern Ireland can be labelled as partially successful – compared to what?). However you might analyse their work, it surely shows that nonviolence is not any less successful than violence and has frequently better outcomes for the future in relation to human rights and so on.

However powerholders rarely roll over and say, yes, let’s change, though it does happen – Gorbachev in the USSR is one example, in moves which allowed the dismantling of the Russian-Soviet empire in eastern Europe. The end result was generally hugely positive though how change happened in Russia, and was responded to in the west, allowed the old authoritarianism to creep back with Putin.

For social and political change movements there are issues of policy and practice. We have to show that there are better ways than the politics of threat, violence and division. The world, and the people of the world, cannot afford that without misery upon misery being heaped on the poorest and many others. This is initially a matter of building concepts of change and how it can come about before actually doing it.

Many people in Ireland identify with the plight of Palestinians, particularly in relation to the war in Gaza but also in the West Bank. Irish people can readily identify with lack of self determination and outside control. Many are also starting to make connections, such as the misery and desperation of the people of Gaza with the role played by the arms trade. There are many such linkages to be made about how the rich, powerful and unscrupulous exercise their greed and control. Conscientisation is not an event, though it can begin with a particular event, but a process of learning how the world works at the moment.

There are other ways, as the reference to Chenoweth and Stephan above indicates. There are lots of examples in Ireland too where the positive forces of change have prevailed. Sometimes it can be a matter, not of biding our time, but building slowly so that when the time is ripe then real change can happen. Ireland is a different and generally more positive place than it was a few decades ago while there are new challenges and issues to be dealt with.

One of the most simple images, which has often been used by Quakers, of cooperation rather than conflict is of two donkeys pulling in opposite directions to get at hay in their vicinity. When they cooperate and go together to one pile of hay, and then the other, they can, so to speak, have their cake and eat it. Conflict is a part of life; it is how we learn to live with it that matters. The powerful will rarely concede their advantage without a struggle; it is in our building strength through nonviolent struggle that we can make progress and build a world without the fear and division which exist today.

Editorials: Ireland’s future and Ireland’s Future, The EU gets even more bellicose

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

Ireland’s future and Ireland’s Future

“Ireland’s Future” is a nationalist think tank which recently released a report entitled “Ireland 2030” with proposals for the period between now and then, i.e. 2024 – 2030. https://irelandsfuture.com/publications/ireland-2030-proposals-for-the-period-between-2024-and-2030/ While this editorial is not intended to be a full scale analysis of this report, it does refer to some points of agreement and disagreement while looking at aspects of what “Ireland’s future” should be.

The Irish government needs to be pro-active – in a way it has not been – to explore what a united Ireland might entail. One point of disagreement with the Ireland’s Future group is on timescale. It is important that nothing is rushed and therefore that the short timescale in that report should not be followed. Some things take time.

The reason we would say that the Irish government should be proactive is not to push a nationalist agenda but to avoid a vacuum. At the moment, while various discussions have been held, there has been no officially-sponsored discussion from the 26-county state on what a 32-county state might look like – despite the ideological commitment to same. Ireland’s Future recommendation to have a dedicated Joint Committee of the Oireachtas on ‘the Constitutional Future of the island of Ireland” is fair enough as far as it goes but it should not be limited to constitutional change – it should be considering social, cultural, economic and human security matters as well. The Civic Forum type body (“”All-Island Civic Forum/Assembly/Dialogue”) which Ireland’s Future recommends, however, is much broader.

There are obvious reasons for the state in the Republic not having done more, and one being not to inflame loyalist passions in the North is positive in the sense that they are thinking of others. But it is also irresponsible because at the moment ‘a united Ireland’ can mean anything, and also people in the Republic have not thought through what it might mean and entail, e.g. in relation to national symbols or to the nature of the state. We know, to a considerable extent, what a ‘United Kingdom’ with Northern Ireland as part of it means; of course there are uncertainties on this, much arising from Brexit, and currently from British government attempts to reassure northern unionists on their commitment to the Union.

We cannot currently compare like with like, or unlike with unlike. If a united Ireland does come about there will of course be some uncertainties right up to whatever changes take place. But we need to know a general impression of what is likely to be the template so that people can be encouraged to make a rational decision – insofar as they are willing to do so – in both the North and the Republic.

Ireland’s Future also recommends that “Human rights, equality and environmental assessments – and associated values – must shape every stage” (of the process they recommend). This is commendable. However the idea of harnessing international opinion (in favour of a united Ireland) is unhelpful and should only be utilised if it is clear that a Secretary of State should have called a referendum, based on what is in the Good Friday Agreement, but has failed to do so for whatever reason. The most important opinion to be influencing is in the North, not internationally.

The fact that Alliance is no longer a small-u unionist party, with more party members supporting Irish unity than the continuation of the existing United Kingdom, is certainly a straw in the wind. It is only a decade ago when prominent Alliance party member Anna Lo caused very considerable angst by proclaiming herself in favour of a united Ireland. For unionists, this will be proof that Alliance has ‘gone over to the other side’ but in reality Alliance as a party has taken no position, and it is another clarion call to unionists to up their game in being able to demonstrate that the continuation of the status quo (or something like the status quo) is in the interests of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, so that they note and vote accordingly. While some unionists are starting to express this point of view there is not much evidence as yet of it being put into practice.

Whether a Labour government in Britain, likely within the next year, affects things significantly remains to be seen. It will be less English-nationalist and perhaps less defensive of the British army and its deeds or misdeeds (cf NI Legacy Act) but it is unlikely to significantly loosen the purse strings. Of course many people will vote on simple unionist/nationalist lines when, and if, it comes to a referendum on Irish unity, but the ‘middle ground’ of Alliance-type voters, and other swing voters, may decide on economic and social grounds as to what is best in the medium to long term for the people of the North. In this case such people may decide that some short term pain, in relation to economic wellbeing and general disruption of existing institutions and practices, is worth the long term gain. Alternatively they may decide the divil you know is better than the divil you don’t.

However there are many things which would need to happen first before there would be a referendum, not least changes and developments in the Republic irrespective of the nature of the proposed constitutional arrangements and any ongoing devolution to the six counties of Northern Ireland under either jurisdiction. An initial point we would stress is that Irish unity, if it is to come, should be a process and not a sudden volte face. There are many ways of organising such a process but a sudden move from UK to Republic without very considerable planning and consultation could be a disaster in a variety of ways – societally, organisationally, financially, and in relation to resistance, violent or not, to such a move by unionism and loyalism.

The Good Friday/Belfast Agreement of 1998 gives the power to the British Secretary of State to decide if and when to call a referendum “if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.” This is very imprecise, gives the Secretary of State a lot of power, and no Secretary of State as yet has clarified exactly what circumstances would lead him or her to that conclusion and course of action. And if a vote was in favour of a united Ireland then ”the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.” Unfortunately not all of those holding the position of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could be said to be first class players in British politics or indeed imbued with great understanding of the realities of Northern Ireland (this is an considerable understatement).

It all does get pinned on a simple arithmetic majority (50% +1) either way in a referendum. A multi-option vote would have been a better way to proceed but we are where we are and neither side is likely to want to change from that. This is where the importance of process comes in. However here is nothing to say that a multi-option referendum or referenda could not be held at any stage after the simple arithmetic majority vote.

We would strongly argue that even if there is a vote for a united Ireland in such a referendum that should be the start of a process, perhaps with an indicative time frame of a number of years and certainly not the next morning, next month or even next year. If the writing was already on the wall then many more unionists would seriously engage with the issues involved and the definite shape of a new Ireland could be thrashed out; at the moment only a few from the unionist side of the house are willing to engage with such questions. Without adopting the details of the time frame advocated by Ireland’s Future – and it is a different context, this is the sort of thing which should come into play after a majority in a referendum vote for Irish unity, if that comes to pass.

And if unionists want to have any chance to continue a link with Britain then they need to facilitate a situation where nationalists are happy to continue under the UK umbrella because their needs are addressed and they also feel they can express their Irishness north of a border. Without that then changing demographics are likely to do their work for a united Ireland. It is clear that some unionists already grasp this but not a majority, and the default position is still nearer ‘what we have, we hold’.

If a united Ireland is coming then how unionists’ British identity and culture can be protected is a key issue. We would argue strongly that this can be done culturally without the Irish state becoming a pale reflection of the neighbouring island, and nor should it entail NATO membership. With freedom of travel between Ireland and Britain, in a united Ireland anyone from Ireland who wanted could, as now, join the British armed forces.

Nationalist commentators – including those in Ireland’s Future – are right that ‘reconciliation’ should not be a precondition of unification but then reconciliation should be a key element in any political moves, full stop. Independent work for reconciliation should continue but be a consideration in all political moves, unionist, nationalist, or other, and the two or three governments involved.

Decisions about the future of Ireland are complex, despite unionist or nationalist simplicities. Clarity is of the essence. The people of Ireland, both sides of the border, deserve honest analysis so that the best decisions can be made for the long term future.

–

The EU gets even more bellicose

‘Bellicosity’ is perhaps an old-fashioned word, and comes from the Latin word for war or warlike, ‘bellum’, and perhaps ‘warlike’ is more prosaic English. But, whatever word you prefer, the EU is gearing up for a fight with Russia, and unspecified others, along with supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia. The mind boggles. The EU, along with its NATO allies the USA and UK, and Russia are all nuclear armed. It is crazy to continue to push forward with confrontation and a new cold war arms race which no one can win. Donald Tusk talks about a “pre-war era”. A senior NATO official recently told EU ambassadors in Dublin that it was a matter of ‘when’ that Russia would invade the EU, not ‘if’.

Rapprochement and conflict resolution or even conflict transformation are difficult but are not even being thought about. And Russia under Putin is not easy to deal with. Those favouring armament and a military approach talk about Munich and British Prime Minister Chamberlain’s mistaken deal with Hitler in 1938. But this is not 1938 or 1939 and Putin may be a murdering quasi-dictator but he is not Hitler and has a more rational approach to what he feels he can get away with. Putting more money in the armaments basket simply leads to the other side doing more of the same. ‘The West’, EU and NATO ignored Russian security concerns when they decided to take NATO membership up to Russia’s boundaries.

It takes two sides to have an arms race. Those who lose are initially the poor when money is diverted to pay the arms merchants and armies. And if the weapons and armies are used in anger then everyone loses big time.

How can we engage non-violently with a somewhat belligerent ‘other side’ without either giving in to unreasonable demands or seeming weak and vulnerable? And what about ‘our’ side’s warmaking (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya)? Why are Europeans not thinking in ‘win/win’ terms, difficult as that may be? What common goals could be decided on that would convince all sides that win/win solutions are possible? What are Russia’s legitimate security concerns? How can Russia be turned from an ‘enemy’ into a friend, as it seemed it might become after the fall of communism? And what went wrong there? Putin may be in power for more than a decade from now but how do we assist a less nationalist and more open Russia to emerge during and after his rule? These are some of the questions which need to be asked but are blatantly not being aired.

Of course it may feel different if you are sitting beside Russia’s borders than if you are falling off the western edge of Europe like Ireland. But it is precisely the ongoing NATO expansion to Russia’s borders which was the occasion for Putin’s full invasion of Ukraine. It may be counter-intuitive to those with a militarist mindset but building up your armed capacity does not necessarily make you safer, it may simply make your perceived enemy more anxious and trigger-happy, and you more likely to use the weapons you do have. Think of what led up to the First World War and where that ended up.

Neutrality has been disparaged by the NATO powers that be and their fellow travellers in Ireland. So it is good to see a congress happening in Columbia on neutrality as a way to aid international stability. There are so many possibilities for neutrality which those in control of the Irish state seem not to see; the sky (plus the earth and the sea) is the limit. We need to build up the visibility and perceived viability of neutrality as a rational and effective means to work towards international and global peace.

In ending this piece it is worth quoting the entirety of a recent statement from MIR in Italy on developments in the EU:

“The Movimento Internazionale della Riconciliazione – a historic Italian pacifist organisation affiliated to the I.F.O.R. – expresses its dismay and concern at the attempt to transform the European Council into a ‘war council’, with the expansion of the EU’s military commitment, not only in terms of war production but also by ventilating a worrying ‘readiness strategy’, which envisages an emergency plan to ‘prepare citizens for conflict’.

“The president of the European Council, Charles Michel, did not hesitate to dust off the old Roman motto ‘If you want peace prepare for war’, hoping that Europe would produce more ammunition and weapons and increase its defence spending,” said Ermete Ferraro, president of the M.I.R., “Moreover, pandering to the invitation coming from the very summit of the E.U. executive, Ursula von der Leyen, Michel clearly hypothesised the transition to a ‘war economy’, preparing citizens for a defence perspective in a blatantly warmongering key”.

M.I.R. Italy considers these statements to be very severe, as they do nothing but exacerbate the current armed conflicts, sidelining the European Union on a ground that betrays its own founding principles. Indeed, Article 3 of the Lisbon Treaty (2012) states that ‘The Union shall aim to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples’, and Article 5 states that: “(The EU) contributes to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights […] and to the strict observance and development of international law, in particular respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter”.

“These principles cannot be reconciled with openly bellicose policies, in which solidarity is understood as sending arms to a country at war,” commented Ferraro. “Therefore, together with the other pacifist organisations, we strongly denounce these dangerous positions and reaffirm the ethical but also constitutional principle of repudiation of war as a mean of resolving international disputes, reaffirming instead the need to develop an unarmed, civil and non-violent defence method”.

Editorials: Defence and offence, Western hypocrisy and power

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

Irish neutrality

Defence and offence

Irish neutrality is an ongoing hot potato, not least because the Irish government and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheál Martin, wants to gobble it up and fall in totally with NATO and EU militarism while always proclaiming ‘neutrality is not at risk’. The so-called Consultative Forum on International Security Policy of mid-2023 provided no justification for any change, especially abolishing the ‘Triple Lock’ on the deployment of Irish troops overseas, but Martin and the Irish government pretend it does. See the StoP report on that ‘Forum’ for more details https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/2023/10/18/stop-report-on-consultative-forum-on-international-security/ A move in the Dáil to get rid of the Triple Lock could happen at any time; see the Irish Neutrality League leaflet on this at https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/53559581373/in/dateposted/

However there are various other developments and pressures taking place, not least in the mainstream media (especially The Irish Times) to support moving closer to NATO. And regular comments in mainly British media, and sometimes from unionist politicians, allege Irish ‘freeloading’ off NATO, by relying on British ‘defence’. This only makes sense if a) you accept the militarist mindset that Ireland could be invaded or attacked in some way by, presumably, Russia and b) you don’t see NATO policies as themselves antagonistic and likely to inflame international tensions, again with Russia. And a British report recommended that the UK strengthen its military presence in Northern Ireland, see https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/leo-varadkar-defends-irelands-security-commitments-after-london-report-accuses-dublin-of-freeloading-on-defence-4506500

The Irish government is an enthusiastic fellow traveller with NATO. It does not proclaim any desire to join NATO (because that would cause an uproar since ‘neutrality’ is still supported by a considerable majority of citizens) but participates in various forms of cooperation, e.g. https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/2024/02/09/ireland-enters-wide-ranging-agreement-with-nato-aimed-at-countering-russia-threats/ We would not say that there is no threat to Irish-linked undersea cabling by Russia but we can be clear that any such threat is part of NATO-Russia antagonism and the best way to tackle this is through active neutrality and engagement with the parties, including working for a solution to the war in Ukraine. Who could best save Europe from war? The militarist and war-making NATO or a small country who, along with others, decided to work in an innovative and imaginative way to defuse situations and build peace?

INNATE supports nonviolence and nonviolent civilian defence and social defence (the latter including defence of social and cultural being more than it is of territory, although that too). However we recognise that within a military approach to defence there is such a thing as “non-offensive defence”, i.e. a defence of territory which cannot be construed to be offensive and therefore does not give rise to arms races and international antagonism over military developments. It would appear that the Irish government, while still paying (increasingly unrealistic) homage to Irish neutrality, has never actually heard of this concept of non-offensive defence but instead wants to go the whole way to put all its eggs in the NATO style militarist basket. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Unfortunately with NATO it is possible that in due course we will have to duck for cover – and in modern warfare, as in Gaza, there may be nowhere to hide.

War is not a game. http://innatenonviolence.org/posters/Children_and_Conflict4_Not%20game.pdf

–

How the West was one

…… hypocritical power abuser

In ‘the West’ we think we are the best, nay, more than that, we know we are the best in the world. This editorial aims to briefly explore that concept. It is not that we do not value ‘western freedoms and democracy’ but that these need qualification in description and have sometimes been dependent on the putting down, literally or metaphorically, of others.

Western empires are thought to be well in the past but their effect more than lingers on in plundered wealth. India was one of the wealthiest areas of the world when Britain took control, initially through private enterprise. When Britain left India it was at the bottom of the wealth pile. But the legacy of empire is still controversial and Britain and France, for example, are generally unwilling to consider that legacy. The aftermath of colonialism is still very obvious in Northern Ireland where the 17th century plantation is the primary root of division; while the Good Friday Agreement has helped make some progress in dealing with that division, it has also, in its consociational elements, copperfastened it.

While Ireland in general (not the unionist part) lauds its anti-imperialist and anti-colonial history, its simultaneous involvement in British imperialism is not necessarily marked. The 19th century British army – that body which actualised empire through violence and repression – was one third Irish. Most Irishmen who joined may have done so for survival and a job rather than a commitment to queen and empire but that was who and what they served.

Today the wealth of the Republic is largely due to tax paid by US multinationals who came partly, or in some cases primarily, because of the low business taxes. A considerable amount of this was and is diversion of tax which should certainly have been paid in other, often much poorer, countries, since such companies are adept at moving profits to where is most advantageous to them in terms of paying tax. This is Ireland creaming off wealth from elsewhere.

And the Irish government, in a country which was once anti-imperialist in terms of international policy, is rapidly trying to join former imperialist powers, and others, in the creation of a pan-European empire which is projected, and euphemised, as a peace project but is now in reality about power and control. We have only to look at what has been happening in relation to EU border control to get a glimpse of the future; and yet far more refugees and migrants are hosted in the (poor) countries neighbouring conflict zones than ever get anywhere near (rich) Europe. Europe often lambastes the USA for its imperial adventures but the EU is rapidly heading towards being another global superpower.

Ireland, which because of colonialism exported vast numbers of citizens, is now under pressure from right wing ideologues proclaiming the island is ‘full’. The government has continued with a grossly unfair system of direct provision for asylum seekers which is contrary to any reasonable definition of human rights but is also an insult to the memory of the Irish people who had to emigrate for economic reasons or to survive in the past.

The ecological crisis is largely the product of the rich, industrialised, West. Certainly relatively newly industrialised countries such as China are now major contributors of greenhouse gases but overall those who have created the problem are those who have the most resources to at least partly ‘buy their way out of it’, and least likely to suffer now or in the future from global heating. While movement on the issue is taking place it is largely at a glacial pace and nothing like the resources which are available are being thrown at it – and Irish green policies are woeful.

‘The West’ is proud of its democratic values but what are these worth? Both the UK and USA have systems which at the top are unrepresentative of the population. The UK’s ‘first past the post’ system is medieval at best, highly unrepresentative, and has largely favoured right wing politics – and policies which would never have had a chance of being implemented had there been a fairer system in place. The US system, while it does possess ‘checks and balances’, is at the top the preserve of those who can raise massive amounts of money – a system favouring right wing and business interests – relative to others. And even that system is at risk in the USA as the right wing seek to overthrow accepted norms. And in Europe various citizen rights are being curtailed, often due to populist right wing pressure. Whistleblowers on state crimes may not be executed but they can be persecuted beyond reason, as with Julian Assange.

Nor are the powerful countries of the West peaceful. Recent decades have seen wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya (undertaken on dubious grounds even within establishment thinking) which have led to further misery and destabilisation, in the case of Libya contributing to violence and destabilisation in a whole region, and the West has also supported war in Yemen, for example. The slaughter in Gaza currently has been strongly supported by the USA, militarily and financially, and also backed by Germany and to a lesser extent Britain. It was the imperialist Balfour Declaration of 1917 by Britain which eventually led, through different processes and wars, to the seizure of Palestinian lands by Israel. And if the USA and Britain had not overthrown the democratic government in Iran in 1953, to prevent the nationalisation of western oil interests, how different the history of that country and the region might have been. Western arms companies contribute in a major way to violence worldwide. NATO nuclear policies, including those of Britain and France, are a danger to the whole world. And wars outside of areas of perceived western interest, e.g. Sudan, get ignored.

An article in this issue by Peter Emerson looks at some issues in relation to Russia, Ukraine, eastern Europe and the Caucasus. We maintain strongly that NATO’s move to the borders of Russia – a country twice invaded from western Europe during the 20th century – was a major contributor to the current war in Ukraine.

There are various simplicities included in the above. And none of the above justifies the negative and violent policies of other countries such as Russia or China where human rights range from much worse to non-existent. But far from the West being awake to the realities of its policies, past and present, and their effects, it seems it is asleep at the wheel when it comes to self awareness. This makes for a mountain to climb for the future. It is however the task of social and political change movements to pull the wool from people’s eyes and show the reality so more positive politics can progress.

Editorials: Northern Ireland – SAD – and a fight at the end of the tunnel

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

The expected return to Stormont following the DUP decision to come back into the fold is indeed welcome news. However there is so much to sort out in Northern Ireland that even with a fair wind at their back it will not be plain sailing for the NI Assembly and Executive. Analysts have said that dealing with the pollution problem in Lough Neagh, that is with a proper plan in place, could still take a couple of decades. Getting Northern Ireland and its public services into reasonable shape could be looking at a similar time frame, at least a decade – and that is with all going well.

Most of the details of the deal done have emerged but how it will work out in practice is another question too as there seem to be various possible incompatibilities. The extent to which it mirrors the deal Theresa May offered, keeping the UK in alignment with EU regulations, is not yet clear; it would be highly ironic to end up with that, supported by the DUP, years after the DUP helped plunge Northern Ireland and the whole UK into chaos in rejecting it. Some of the changes are window dressing and simple renaming but the fact of the matter is that there was very little room for manoeuvre given previous decisions made through the Good Friday Agreement and Brexit. However the exclusion of other parties from DUP negotiations with the British government is not a good model of democracy. Nevertheless the DUP can argue that it has got a good deal, though the extent to which it meets their much vaunted ”seven tests” is highly debatable, or indeed whether it has changed anything in the Windsor Framework.

And a huge number of problems arise. The biggest underlying problem is of course the start-stop nature of the Northern Ireland Assembly itself. If the two largest parties retain their veto power over whether the Assembly is ‘up’ or ‘down’ then the last two years are unlikely to be the last hiatus. Each ‘Fresh Start’ is not necessarily that, and another stumbling block could cause more ‘down time’. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/22924768430/in/photolist-AVMqY7 Persuading the DUP and Sinn Féin to drop their veto power and allow the Assembly to continue without one of them in the Executive is a major move and not an easy one to achieve. All the other old issues of division remain in place.

Having a Sinn Féin First Minister in Michelle O’Neill is a new departure, and although the Deputy First Minister is equally powerful, it is deeply symbolic of the demographic shift in Northern Ireland. It does also seem a good illustration of unionist commitment to cooperation and democracy at this point. However decision making in the Assembly has often been very poor and inclusive voting systems, such as those espoused by the de Borda Institute, www.deborda.org could make a big difference. Sinn Féin could also do with reining back triumphalist statements which could inflame matters; Mary Lou McDonald indicating that a united Ireland was within “touching distance” was unwise as it gives succour to loyalist opposition to a deal. Her statement was more qualified than this reference might indicate; she was speaking, she said, “in historic terms” (which could conceivably refer to time periods of centuries) and while she was talking about “a new Ireland” it is clear that this is a euphemism for ‘a united Ireland’ of some sort. https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/first-sinn-fein-first-minister-shows-irish-unity-is-within-touching-distance/a147204909.html

SAD can be an acronym for Seasonal Affective Disorder, a depressive condition brought about by seasonal factors and associated by many with lack of light in winter, and the start of the year can be very dreary. SAD could also be an appropriate acronym for Sectarian Affective Disorder whereby the situation in Northern Ireland is continually held hostage by sectarian approaches to politics. By ‘sectarian’ in this context we are not meaning it in its full brutal and vindictive form but more in a sociological sense that people’s, and political parties’, approaches tend to be conditioned and imprisoned to a considerable extent by the main background of their supporters, cultural Catholic or cultural Protestant, political nationalist or political unionist. By this measurement, Northern Ireland is just as ‘SAD’ now as it was before the DUP agreed to go back into the Assembly.

We don’t want to rehash the history of Ireland, plantation, partition or Brexit here. But there are numerous problems which have proved to make thorough and lasting solutions impossible. While most unionists will now be backing Stormont, many unionists feel the nature of their British citizenship has been changed by the Northern Ireland Protocol and then the Windsor Framework. To some extent they are right. A slight economic barrier in the Irish Sea between Britain and Ireland has been erected which was not there during EU membership. The fact of easier access to the EU market from the North does not for them trump the fact that they felt ‘trapped’ by the EU regulations in still being in the ‘single market’ and thus ruled by ‘foreign laws’ (laws which are evolving but by which the whole of the UK was bound during its EU membership).

Being treated differently to the rest of the UK is considered anathema to many unionists – at least when it is not to their liking. But Ireland before partition and Northern Ireland since 1921 have usually had trade barriers or differentiations with Britain so that is actually nothing new. https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/henry-patterson-legalistic-attempts-to-restore-article-6-of-the-act-of-union-would-be-a-disaster-4495902

Most analysts feel that the DUP, having backed a hard Brexit, were only persuaded to oppose the Northern Ireland Protocol, and subsequently the Windsor Framework, by practical politics – losing support to the harder line TUV. This is correct. But principles and practicalities can go together and there are principles involved for most unionists. However the practical result of DUP opposition to the settlement in withdrawing from Stormont meant that the ship of state in the North has been virtually rudderless for two years with very considerable effects for workers, planning, poverty, communities and so on. This was not in the interest of anyone in the North.

Nationalists also feel aggrieved in that Brexit took place when an arithmetic majority in the North supported staying in the EU. For them this may not have adversely affected their view of the constitutional situation but it certainly was detrimental, in their view, to the status quo agreed in the Good Friday Agreement where common EU membership was assumed for Britain and Ireland. Their feeling is that Brexit has been used to emphasise ‘Britishness’ and get one up on them; the DUP is perceived as having held the whole of society hostage in a situation where they do not realise the compromises which nationalists face every day in a British state.

The British approach to all this was not very helpful with Chris Heaton-Harris seeming, or even being, somewhat ineffectual in the role of Secretary of State. Holding out the prospect of the much needed money but it being dependent on a return to Stormont by the DUP was regarded as insulting by those in need, and by the DUP, for different reasons. To withhold cash from those in need is reprehensible. And the DUP regarded it as moral blackmail. The money could and should have been made available irrespective of decisions by the DUP holding the North to ransom. Whether the hard ball played by Heaton-Harris made any difference to the DUP’s decision to return is a debatable question.

The extent to which there will be defections from the DUP over the return to Stormont remains to be seen. Jeffrey Donaldson himself was a defector from the Ulster Unionist Party after the Good Friday Agreement. However a further division in unionism is not in the interest of peace and stability in the North. The TUV, while ably represented by Jim Allister, has remained a one man band because it is not transfer friendly in the PR-STV system; any defectors there from the DUP would face an uncertain future electorally, and it is difficult to see the likes of Ian Paisley jeopardising his cosy position.

Things may settle down further under a Labour government in Britain if it builds closer relations with the EU. But that is some time away.

The situation in Northern Ireland remains SAD, and while spring is just around a couple of corners, and there is lots of light at the end of this particular tunnel, there are also likely to be lots of fights at the end of the tunnel. Devolved power in Northern Ireland is a very partial success, and even when it is meeting the Assembly and Executive have not been very effective decision makers.

To change the metaphor away from tunnels, Northern Ireland may be exiting one particular cul de sac. However there is no clear direction set and the vehicle it is travelling in is liable to break down, and it is creaky at the best of times. There isn’t even a map available or an agreed destination. This is certainly not the end of history and the ride ahead will continue to be bumpy.

War: Rooting out ‘Rooting out the men of violence’

Editorials, Nonviolent News

The concept of ‘rooting out the men of violence’ is an appealing one to those of a militarist mindset. It projects a simple solution to problems by ‘going in’ and killing or arresting those who are military opponents. There is one major problem; it doesn’t work. Of course it may achieve something like success in the short term, in ‘pacifying’ a group or an area, but in the longer term it is disastrous because it creates martyrs, hatred, and thereby increased resistance as time goes by.

There were those in Northern Ireland who advocated ‘rooting out the men of violence’, and internment in 1971 was one botched early attempt at this which backfired spectacularly. In the recent Troubles it also took the British state perhaps a decade and a half to realise that killing people in circumstances where they didn’t need to (within the logic of military fighting) did create martyrs and was counterproductive to building peace.

The ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland was a relatively small guerrilla war with a few thousand people dying over a period of thirty years. It was often bloody, ugly and dirty, and has had lasting effects, but it was also limited by a variety of factors including public opinion (not least by those supporting paramilitary groups) and international pressure. The pain and hatred involved is still incalculable.

The war in Gaza is of a different order entirely with a vicious assault by Hamas on both Israeli military and civilians in southern Israel on 7th October 2023 with around 1,200 deaths and a couple of hundred hostages taken. This was followed by an all out assault by the Israeli state on Gaza resulting in around 25,000 deaths to date, many of them children. The Israeli government committed itself to total victory over Hamas and its complete destruction. Gaza has been turned into a wasteland of destruction and death. The couple of million people in Gaza are now mainly homeless and hospital-less with nowhere safe to shelter and that shelter may be a makeshift tent, and malnutrition and disease waiting outside it.

The magnitude of the war in Gaza is totally different to Northern Ireland. Comparisons can seem crass. But there is certainly one commonality; the concept of rooting out the men of violence is a gross mistake and failure. This leads to the increased production of enemies, and, aside from genocidal destruction, the only way to get rid of enemies is to turn them into friends. Even after, specially after, the assault by Hamas on 7th October that is the only lasting solution to the issues of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, creating a viable Palestinian state which can build the future for the Palestinian people that they deserve. It is that, and only that, which will create real peace and security for Israel and the people of Israel. It is the denial of that right of statehood for the Palestinian people which has created the current catastrophe.

The extent to which the peace process in Northern Ireland is replicable elsewhere is open to debate, and it is possible that particular accounts, important as they may be, see e.g. https://www.transcend.org/tms/2024/01/how-israel-failed-to-learn-from-the-northern-ireland-peace-process/ may effectively overstate the importance of one integral factor because it does not cover others. Nevertheless it is possible to draw some conclusions from the Northern Ireland experience about the importance of an equal playing field, inclusion, and a process over a considerable period of time with support from governments internationally which builds on common interests to create a momentum for peace which can build up towards the climax of a peace agreement. Though, as we know in Northern Ireland, that a peace agreement is not an end but only a beginning. Ironically, the USA which was a major supporter of the peace process in Northern Ireland is a major player in backing and supporting Israel and its war efforts, financially, diplomatically and militarily, and it also bears responsibility for the deaths in Gaza.

There are common interests for the people of Israel and Palestine but they are almost totally obscured or even obliterated in the craziness and obscenity of war, and more generally by Israel’s colonial project on Palestinian land.