Category Archives: Readings

Only the ‘Readings’ from 2021 onwards are accessible here. For older ‘Readings in Nonviolence’, please click on the “Go to our pre-2021 Archive website’ on the right, and select ‘Readings’ there.

Women and justice during wartime: A comprehensive analysis

by Olga Karach, “Our House” (Belarus)

Wartime reshapes society in profound and often devastating ways, disproportionately impacting women by undermining their agency, autonomy, and justice. This article explores the systematic objectification of women during conflict, the normalization of violence, their exclusion from decision-making processes, and the neglect of grassroots efforts led by women. Additionally, it provides actionable recommendations to address these critical issues, emphasizing the importance of feminist approaches to peacebuilding.

Systematic Objectification of Women During Wartime

War dehumanizes women by reducing their identity to functions that serve societal, familial, or state agendas. This systemic objectification manifests in several forms:

  • Inspiration for Men’s Sacrifice: Women are expected to inspire men to fight, glorify their acts of violence, and validate their sacrifices. This role strips women of their individuality, framing them as tools of motivation rather than autonomous individuals with their own agency. The burden of emotionally supporting men, often at the cost of their well-being, becomes a societal expectation.

  • Reproductive Roles: Women’s bodies are weaponized during wartime, with an emphasis on their role as bearers of future soldiers. This utilitarian view pressures women into motherhood under the guise of patriotism, marginalizing those who choose not to have children. Societies often stigmatize and vilify child-free women, reinforcing patriarchal norms and criminalizing personal choices.

  • “Keeper of the Hearth”: The expectation for unwavering loyalty to men on the frontlines confines women to roles of emotional servitude. Divorce or separation becomes socially taboo, forcing women to endure unhappy or abusive relationships under the pretext of supporting their partners.

  • Household Psychologists: Women are burdened with managing the psychological struggles of male soldiers and combatants, often without acknowledgment or support. This responsibility becomes particularly oppressive when men exhibit aggression or violence, yet societal norms dictate that women must provide unconditional care and understanding.

  • Sexual Objectification: Wartime amplifies the objectification of women, reducing their value to their physical appearance or relationships with men. Women are praised or condemned based on their roles as the wife of a hero, the mother of a soldier, or other gendered labels. This pervasive objectification denies women their individuality and agency.

In essence, war transforms women from autonomous individuals into tools of the war effort, stripping them of their humanity and individuality.

The Spread of Violence and Exclusion

The normalization of violence during wartime creates a ripple effect that perpetuates systemic abuse and exclusion, particularly for women.

  • Domestic Violence: The glorification of combatants and political prisoners as “heroes” of the war often silences victims of domestic violence. Women in such relationships are frequently pressured to tolerate abuse, as society excuses violent behavior stemming from PTSD or war-related trauma. This dynamic leaves women trapped in unsafe environments, with few avenues for support or recourse.

  • Hostility Toward Refugee and Migrant Women: Women fleeing warzones, particularly from Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, face unique challenges. These include physical aggression, psychological abuse, and targeted surveillance by intelligence agencies like the KGB and FSB. In exile, women human rights defenders often encounter heightened threats, compounded by inadequate support systems, leaving them isolated and vulnerable.

  • Marginalization in Decision-Making: The militarization of masculinity sidelines women from political and societal leadership roles. Feminist voices advocating peace and gender sensitivity are often dismissed, suppressed, or misrepresented, perpetuating patriarchal power structures and militaristic narratives.

  • Neglect of Grassroots Initiatives: Women activists, particularly those operating at the grassroots level, shoulder immense responsibilities, often filling gaps left by weakened state institutions. These efforts, while vital, are undervalued and unsupported, leading to widespread burnout among activists.

  • Exclusion of War-Traumatized Women: Women who directly experience war-related trauma or repression frequently lack access to necessary mental health and social support. This neglect pushes them further into isolation, hindering their ability to contribute to community rebuilding and leadership.

The spread of violence and systemic exclusion during wartime perpetuates cycles of abuse and marginalization, creating a hostile environment for women both within and beyond conflict zones.

Recommendations for Addressing Wartime Injustice Against Women

The challenges faced by women during wartime demand targeted interventions that prioritize justice, inclusion, and equity. The following recommendations outline actionable strategies to address these systemic issues:

  • Activate UN Resolution 1325: Governments and international organizations must implement UN Resolution 1325 to ensure women’s perspectives are included in peace and conflict resolution processes. Their exclusion perpetuates patriarchal structures and diminishes the effectiveness of peacebuilding efforts.

  • Promote Disarmament and Combat Militarization: Advocating for disarmament and resisting the militarization of society, particularly among children, is essential. The glorification of violence in education and media instills dangerous militaristic norms in younger generations, perpetuating cycles of conflict.

  • Support Marginalized Men: Men who reject militarized masculinity, such as conscientious objectors and deserters, need targeted support. Social reintegration programs can provide these individuals with the tools to rebuild their lives, promoting healing and breaking the cycle of violence.

  • Address Trauma and Prevent Conflict: Comprehensive trauma support for combatants and their families is critical to breaking the cycle of violence. Tackling domestic violence, particularly in families of former combatants and political prisoners, should be prioritized through mental health initiatives and community support programs.

  • Strengthen Grassroots Initiatives: Women-led grassroots organizations are essential for trauma recovery and long-term peacebuilding. These initiatives require increased funding, training, and institutional support to prevent burnout and ensure their sustainability.

  • Amplify Feminist Narratives: Feminist approaches to peacebuilding offer a vital counterbalance to patriarchal militarism. Empowering feminist peacebuilders and amplifying their voices can foster resilience against radicalization and militarization, creating a more equitable foundation for peace.

Conclusion

Women are disproportionately affected by the dehumanizing forces of wartime, from systemic objectification to the spread of violence and exclusion. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach that uplifts women’s voices, supports grassroots efforts, and dismantles patriarchal power structures. By implementing inclusive policies and amplifying feminist perspectives, we can create a pathway toward justice, equity, and sustainable peace.

This vision demands a collective commitment to challenging militaristic narratives and empowering women as agents of change in the pursuit of a more peaceful and equitable world.

The English language website of Our House is at https://news.house/ where this piece also appears.

Good COP, bad COP: Decision making at an international level

by Peter Emerson

The rules for decision-making in conferences like the recent COP29 in Baku were ‘agreed to’ in 1991.  The choice was either (i) majority voting; (ii) consensus, by which is meant everyone agrees; or (iii) consensus but, if it fails, simple or weighted majority voting as a last resort.  

To (iii), Saudi Arabia and its OPEC companions said ’no’ – it must be (their type of) ‘consensus’, with every country having a veto (the very opposite of consensus)!  And with huge encouragement from the US oil lobby, the parties ‘agreed’.  In a nutshell, everything was based on the principle (sic) of ‘either-I-win…-or-I-don’t-lose.’

Germany amongst others proposed a ‘double-majority’ process: so for example, if the small island states and the OPEC members both said ‘yes’ then, (like consociationalism in the GFA), ‘yes’ it would be.  

Everyone, apparently, likes the 4,500-year-old binary vote, and no-one, it seems, in the UN (or in Belfast) has considered the 2,000-year-old multi-option voting or, better still, the 250-year-old preferential vote.  And ‘no-one’ means none of the parties and, as far as I can see, none of the academics commenting on all this.  

So ‘consensus’ is the procedure, which means if “there are no stated objections to a proposed decision,” it is passed.  Or, in other words, decisions are subject to the veto, any country’s veto.

Then came the arguments, as in COP16 where it was argued, “consensus does not mean unanimity… one delegation does not have the right to veto.”  (https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-challenge-of-consensus-decision-making-in-un-climate-negotiations/).  But ambiguities remain.  Hence, in Glasgow’s COP26, there were huge arguments over “phase out” or “phase down” – as always, all very binary.   

Overall, just as politicians in parliament’s don’t like compromise, so too, countries in the COPs will not accept a decision-making procedure which almost guarantees the final decision will be a compromise.

But the COPs are (still) dominated by the oil lobby.  Hence the call for a World Citizens’ Assembly in The Ecologist.

Peter Emerson is director of the de Borda Institute, www.deborda.org

Tribute to Tom Hyland

by Joe Murray

We previously recorded the death of Tom Hyland; he died in Dili on 24th December 2024. There was a memorial mass and civic ceremony in Ballyfermot, Dublin in January and this was the tribute made by his good friend Joe Murray, former coordinator of Afri –

I think that anyone who knew Tom Hyland will agree that he was a unique human being. While not seeking to beatify him, he definitely had a rare combination of gifts, talents and flair.

Tom was kind, caring and generous and deeply felt the suffering, not only of other people but also of animals.

I remember walking with him through Ballyfermot or through town and he would rarely pass anyone who was looking for money without helping. His love for animals led him to be a dedicated vegetarian and his concern for people led him to be a great humanitarian – and to his setting up the East Timor Ireland Solidarity Campaign.

He had an extraordinary level of determination and commitment and once he took on the cause of Timor, nothing would stand in his way. He read, studied, listened and learned everything possible about East Timor and then threw himself completely into the cause of freedom for the Timorese people.

While he never lost his sense of humour or his humanity, he was single-minded and completely focussed on the cause. He was a regular visitor to Afri and often he would’ve heard about another atrocity committed by Indonesian troops and he would be devastated but, rather than giving up – he’d be even more determined to continue to support the struggle. I didn’t really believe that Timor would achieve its independence – the grip of the Indonesian occupation was so tight – and I used to wonder why Tom continued to put himself through such distress and trauma. But his example is a good lesson for those of us campaigning today on issues such as the genocide in Palestine and the numerous mindless wars happening around our world. We must never give up the fight!

He was creative when it came to campaigning. There are many examples of this but a particularly significant one was when Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating made a nostalgic visit to Ireland, the land of his ancestors in 1993. Keating’s family left Ireland around 1855, as a result of evictions. To highlight Australia’s support for Indonesia, Tom organised a candle light vigil outside Dublin Castle, while the Prime Minister was being wined and dined inside, highlighting parallels between Keating’s ancestors and the eviction of people in East Timor under Indonesian occupation. A source within the Australian embassy told Tom afterwards that the Prime Minister was furious by the fact that his nostalgic lap of honour was marred by this protest.

Tom was extremely popular both at home in Ireland and in East Timor. I was privileged to have visited Timor on two occasions – once as the people prepared to vote for Independence and again in 2015 to accept an award from the President of East Timor on behalf of ETISC. I stayed in Tom’s house for the second visit and met many of his friends, students whom he was helping through college and his cats, of course.

I travelled into Dili with him on the back of his Honda 50 and it was like travelling with a global celebrity. Dozens of times on the short journey people waved and shouted ‘Mr. Tom’. When we arrived near his office, and were walking through a busy shopping area, Tom made a noise like he was calling chickens and this was echoed back numerous times…obviously a secret language that Tom had developed with the people in the market. I attended his class where he was teaching English to future Diplomats in his own unique way. During the class, one of his students asked him ‘Mr. Tom, can I take a half day’? Can you take a half day, Tom repeated… ‘you can in your bollix’!

So, if you hear this term being used by the Timorese delegation in UN negotiations, you’ll know exactly where it originated.

He was advised to speak to a solicitor in a company called Potter and Anderson. He asked the receptionist if he could see Mr. Potter. The receptionist asked who will I tell Mr. Potter is calling? Without a second’s hesitation, he said ‘his son, Harry’.

This sense of fun was perhaps Tom’s most distinctive feature. He had an exceptional sense of mischief and humour. There are many other stories of moments like these, far too numerous to mention.

In conclusion, Tom was a kind, compassionate, generous, determined, creative and funny man. He was a great friend and we miss him greatly. Ní bheidh a leithéid arís ann.

Readings in Nonviolence: Sharp non-shooting – Gene Sharp book review

Gene Sharp – A life devoted to exploring nonviolent actions, edited by Craig S. Brown, Irene Publishing, 2024, 256 pages, price c. UK£22. https://irenepublishing.com/

Reviewed by Rob Fairmichael

In reading this book, I expected to learn a bit more about Gene Sharp, what shaped his life and work, and some more about things like his theory of power. I was wrong. While some of it is not an easy read, particularly if you are new to nonviolent theories, I found it also contained a massive amount of very useful information and reflections on many different aspects of nonviolence. So, while it is not a primer on nonviolence the contents from the different writers – including Christine Schweitzer, Brian Martin and Craig Brown himself – cover a very considerable number of issues in the field of peace and nonviolence.

I have been a fan, hopefully not an uncritical fan (a ‘Sharpie’?), of Gene Sharp for many years. While it is possible to overstate his role, see below, and he was a theorist more than an activist, even if a theorist of action – that does not mean he is not one of the most important figures in nonviolence in the second half of the twentieth century and the start of the twenty-first. Brian Martin says “Sharp’s pioneering contributions have shaped the study and understanding of nonviolent action today. Among his most influential ideas are the classification and documentation of hundreds of nonviolent methods, a theory of power to explain why the methods work, and a strategic, agency-oriented framework for understanding nonviolent campaigns. These are facets of what is commonly called the ‘pragmatic approach’ to nonviolent action, providing an argument that nonviolent action is more effective than violence.” (pages 55-56)

The training/exploration workshop which INNATE has used the most is one on nonviolent tactics and this has Sharp’s “198 varieties” of nonviolent action tactics at its core (from his 1973 “The Politics of Nonviolent Action”). This workshop takes participants through some relevant historical examples from Sharp – and he has numerous Irish ones – before doing individual ‘risk lists’ (the kind of things people feel comfortable doing or could at least could push themselves to do with support and preparation) and then moving on to brainstorm on the particular issue or issues of concern that those present wish to address. It thus expands people’s horizons on nonviolent possibilities before personalising it and focussing on the matter for which people are together. https://innatenonviolence.org/workshops/workshop1.shtml

I met and heard Gene Sharp just once, at a conference in Bradford on social defence in 1990 (see Dawn Train No.10, page 18, available at https://innatenonviolence.org/dawntrain/index.shtml ). I was not perturbed by the issue for which some peace activists would criticise him, namely that he was only advocating nonviolence for pragmatic and not moral grounds (for ‘moral’ here, read also philosophical and religious/spiritual). Since in general I see no contradiction between the positions of being morally or pragmatically committed to nonviolence, and this informs my practice despite being morally committed to nonviolence as well as pragmatically, I was certainly not worried about this aspect of Sharp’s stand.

One of Craig Brown’s conclusions on this area is that “it is notable that Sharp suggested the ‘pragmatic-principled’ split in nonviolence is overstated, seeing the dynamics of both being mutually reinforcing and advocating a ‘mixed motivation’ of ‘practical considerations’ and ‘relative moral preference.” (page 158)

However it is clear from this book, and to a considerable extent the earlier part of Gene Sharp’s life, that deep down there was very considerable commitment to a moral stand against war and violence. Michael Randle in his piece states, (page 9), that “In later years, Gene declared he was no longer a pacifist, but there is no reason to believe his thinking changed on this point.” He did, however, distance himself from the peace movement to a considerable extent and would have been critical of ‘them’. Part of Michael Randle’s conclusion in his chapter is that “The thread that links the earlier pacifist Gene with the more pragmatic Gene of the latter period is the commitment to the same basic values, to developing nonviolent action as a strategy against dictatorship and oppression, and as an alternative to reliance on the military for national defence.” (page 20).

The book also demythologises the deification of Sharp and his role in relation to the 2010/2011 revolutions in MENA/WANA countries, the ‘Arab spring’. It is not saying he had no influence here, or in Baltic countries throwing off the rule of the USSR, but that these revolutions and movements were largely situated within indigenous forms of protest, and western emphasis on Sharp’s work and thinking was misplaced. The distribution or knowledge of work by Sharp was not a major factor in these revolutions; that does not make Sharp a less important figure on the world stage in working for peace and justice.

Especially in a chapter by Craig Brown himself (which has been available previously), this work effectively defends Sharp against the accusation that he was a tool of neoliberalism and US foreign policy. While there is the possible interpretation that he may have been naive at times in relation to arms of the US state, or others (which of us has not been naive?), it would seem to clear him unequivocally of the accusation of him being neoliberal or assisting neoliberalism, indeed positing him as closer to anarchist traditions.

I want now to examine some more detailed aspects of the book, mainly working from start to finish. The first two chapters, by Michael Randle and Andrew Rigby, are very interesting reflections on some of Gene Sharp’s early life, especially his time in Britain – he became an assistant editor of Peace News in 1955. Admittedly in you are not interested in Gene Sharp you are perhaps not going to be interested in this – but then if you are not interested in Gene Sharp you are unlikely to read this book. One fascinating aspect of the coverage here of 1950s British action is, perhaps tragically, how modern much of it feels – like it could be action taken today (and some of the issues were the same or very similar).

One point I learnt was that Sharp had taken his typification of the mechanisms of change, or different ways nonviolence can be successful – conversion, accommodation or coercion (the last has been controversial for some pacifists) from George Lakey, though Sharp added a fourth point, disintegration (of the oppressor or coercer), page 10. The realisation that nonviolent action is not the preserve of pacifists (page 25) – a key point in perhaps all of Sharp’s work – is so fundamental, and yet so ignored, that it is likely to be an essential understanding in any nonviolent movement for change. However that should not mean ignoring the importance of the involvement of nonviolent activists in keeping a movement nonviolent (page 41).

I often quote Sue Williams about there always being people, in the most violent of situations, trying to deal peacefully with the issue concerned. This comes to mind in the coverage of ‘islands of peace’ in civil wars (page 42) in Christine Schweitzer’s piece where she considers key factors in such phenomena including anticipation of the coming conflict, choosing a ‘non-war’ identity, a legitimate leadership structure, and contact with the different belligerents. It would be interesting to apply this broadly to what took place in the Troubles in Northern Ireland and peace efforts there. In relation to civil strife and war, she goes on to point out that, since we all have to live together in peace again, and that this is much easier if there has been no massive bloodshed, “…..still, what is needed is conflict transformation, not just winning a conflict like a war is being won. This is an aspect that does not play a big role, if any, in Sharp’s writings.” (page 46)

Christine Schweitzer’s chapter is on social defence (a less statist approach to protecting civilian populations which is covered in the concepts of nonviolent or civilian based defence). It is difficult to underestimate the importance of making progress in this area for avoiding the plague of wars which currently exist, and the risks of widespread annihilation which threaten. In this area, Sharp is your man, while of course others have taken the issue forward, though progress is slow and intermittent.

The deliberate avoidance of this issue by the Irish Government’s ‘Consultative Forum on International Security Policy’ in 2023, called by Micheál Martin, is almost criminal negligence – and if I hadn’t voluntarily left under protest a Dublin Castle session of this ‘Forum’ I would have been thrown out for trying to point out this wilful ignoring of the matter. They seem incapable of thinking outside an EU/NATO box and static military thinking. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/53003786126/in/dateposted/ Or am I being simply as naive as Sharp is sometimes accused of in expecting real interest from governments? (see above.) And a question arising is if the government of a relatively non-militarist ‘neutral’ state cannot or will not, refuses to, see the real possibilities here, what hope is there of others? But we must live in hope (and effort…).

A valid criticism of Sharp by Brian Martin, page 77, is that he “…never made an analysis of strategy to transform the military-industrial complex. He somehow assumed that defence policy-makers are primarily concerned with their nominal tasks, defence against foreign enemies.” And while the long interview with Gene Sharp in the book by Jørgen Johansen and Stellan Vinthagen has many useful takeaway points, it also shows the extent to which Sharp had neither studied nor claimed to have answers to many questions. But he was also being very honest.

One aspect of Sharp’s thinking, as shown in the Johansen-Vinthagen interview, is portraying two levels in Gandhi’s thinking, lifestyle and spiritual discipline compared to the political level, and the confusion this sometimes caused as to what level he was operating on. (page 93). Sharp elucidated this in response to a question about Gandhi’s influence on him – and he had a book exclusively on Gandhi, “Gandhi as a Political Strategist”.

When asked in the interview about the universal applicability of nonviolence, with an interviewer saying he has the feeling that Sharp is suggesting that “nonviolent techniques are a universal technique that is possible to apply more or less everywhere”, Sharp responds to say “I am not sure I would put it that way. I think they are universal in the sense that they have been so widely practiced. But there may be certain kinds of situations in which they would not be effective for achieving the ends that a particular group might want to achieve…..” I think this is probably an important qualification in avoiding the impression that ‘one size fits all’ and that you can simply transfer a technique from one situation and culture to another; perhaps you can, perhaps you can’t. (page 119)

The interviewers also critique peace research departments in universities saying that “With extremely few exceptions they study everything but peace…”, and Sharp then shares his frustration with peace researchers. (page 129)

Craig Brown critically examines Sharp’s influence, or lack of it, in relation the independence of the Baltic states (page 138 and following) and “The So-called Arab Spring” (page 158), the conclusion in relation to the latter being that “Sharp’s purported influence was overblown and overstated.” (page 159). The lack of economic analysis in Sharp’s work is acknowledged. (page 153)

Before a listing of Gene Sharp’s writings in a final chapter or appendix, two relatively short, old works of Sharp’s are reproduced. The first is a study of nonviolence, and nonviolent possibilities, in relation to the Welsh nationalist adoption of nonviolence; this was written in 1957 when he was in Britain. It is entitled “Which way to freedom? A study in non-violence”.

The second short work, published in 1958 in serial form in ‘Peace News’, focuses on the history of Norwegian teachers’ resistance to the fascist government of Vidkun Quisling, installed by the German Nazi regime. Sharp spent quite some time researching this and it is a fascinating account of resistance in a harsh environment, both politically and in relation to physical cold. It is a tremendous example of nonviolent resistance when violent resistance was impossible and where the enemy could be extremely brutal. The end result, or part of the end, is typified by Quisling’s well known quote that “You teachers have ruined everything for me!” This writing is an important telling of an extraordinary, stunning piece of resistance.

Gene Sharp wasn’t necessarily sharp in his writing style, in this book his writing is described as prosaic, but he is also depicted as the most influential figure in modern times on nonviolence. While centred on the person of Sharp this is a book which includes, admittedly sometime in summary form, a huge number of the issues in relation to nonviolence. And if you are trying to get to grips with Sharp’s thinking it is certainly a book to read; it is also, by itself, a valuable addition to thinking about nonviolence and its role in building peace and social or political change, wherever you are.

Where are we going?

The pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war…but we have no more urgent task”   – John F Kennedy; 10th June 1963

By Liz Cullen

The Russian attack on Ukraine is widely regarded as having been “unprovoked”. While not, in any way, condoning the invasion, the expansion of NATO is the true cause of the current war in the Ukraine. There is irrefutable evidence showing that the promise made to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward”, after the Warsaw Pact was disbanded in 1991 was broken (1). The expansion of NATO as a cause of the war has been confirmed by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (2). This expansion of NATO has resulted in Russia being encircled. Estonia and Latvia, directly situated on the border with Russia, joined NATO in 2004, Bulgaria which also joined NATO in 2004 and Turkey, a member since 1952 are both on the Black Sea. The US has Aegis missiles in Poland since 2018 (3) and in Romania since 2016 (4).

In addition, long range US missiles are to be deployed periodically in Germany from 2026 (5). It seems that NATO is providing a basis for US troops in Europe, the USA has 750 bases in at least 80 countries (6), while Russia has 21 bases in 13 countries, most of them former Soviet republics (7). Furthermore, NATO is also “strengthening dialogue and cooperation” with countries in the Pacific and Indian oceans, namely Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Republic of Korea (8).

Aside from having an expansionist ethos, NATO also has a troubled history. As far back as 1999, NATO attacked Yugoslavia, without a UN sanction in a clear violation of international law. When NATO invaded Afghanistan in 2001, almost a quarter of a million Afghani people died during the 20 year war which ensued. In 2011, NATO with authorization from the UN security council, imposed a no-fly zone on Libya, but they seriously abused this resolution by overthrowing the Libyan government. Thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands were forced to flee. The three most powerful NATO states, US, Germany and UK are all actively supporting Israeli war crimes and genocide in Gaza, in clear contravention of the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention, and rulings by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

NATO is also a nuclear armed organization; their website proclaims that “Nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities for deterrence and defence, alongside conventional and missile defence forces” (9). The description of NATO by Professor Jeffrey Sachs as “a clear and present danger to world peace, a war machine run amok” (10) is appropriate. Nevertheless, the European Council stated in August 2024, that NATO is an “essential partner of the EU, sharing the same values and strategic interests” (11).

The Triple Lock ensures that Irish troops over twelve in number cannot take part in overseas missions without the approval of the Cabinet, the Dáil and the United Nations. It is a protection for Irish people against being involved in EU and NATO military activities. Minister Martin’s moves to abandon the Triple Lock is shameful. Many of the voters who rejected the Nice treaty in 2001 did so because of concerns that we would become militarily involved with the EU. However, we were assured by the government that such fears were unfounded, and that we would have the safety of the Triple lock. Therefore, Ireland would not become militarily involved with the EU. This is the reason why many people subsequently voted yes in 2002 when the referendum was re-run.

Similarly, the Lisbon treaty was rejected in 2008, again over fears in relation to the military implications. However the treaty was passed when the referendum was re-run following reassurances from the government about the Triple lock. Minister Martin’s actions to abolish this safeguard are a shameful betrayal of the trust of the Irish people, who have consistently shown their support for peace-making and neutrality.

A cause of further concern, is that Ireland, a country with a constitutional obligation to be a peacemaker, is a member of the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), which is strongly connected to NATO. An obligation under PESCO is that we must ensure that our forces have “interoperability with NATO”, and annual assessments will be conducted to ensure this. We have also committed to “make the European defence industry more competitive”.

Following on from this, the Department of Defence had an “information and networking event” (12) in the Aviva stadium in 2022 titled “Building the Ecosystem”. The purpose of this event was to introduce small businesses and third level institutions in Ireland to arms manufacturers. It was addressed by the CEO of Thales, the biggest arms manufacturer in Ireland, producing missile systems for export. It seems that the response of a neutral country is not to disarm and demilitarize, but to accelerate the promotion of war and the war industry (13).

Irish people do not want to become militarily involved in overseas conflicts, and successive polls have shown this. It is therefore very unlikely that the Irish people would support membership of an organization such as NATO and the use of nuclear weapons.

This is a crucial and dangerous time in world politics. A senior NATO official recently said that governments should be talking to their citizens about mobilization, more reservists and even conscription (14). Therefore the onus has never been as great on the government to do the right thing – to fulfil our constitutional obligation to be peacemakers and to stand up for the wishes of the Irish people. NATO has little to do with peace and everything to do with supporting the international arms industry. It is too closely allied to the EU and it is dragging us into the shadow of a nuclear apocalypse.

At the very least, we should undertake the following three actions:

  1. We must keep the triple lock

  2. We must leave PESCO without delay

  3. We must stop supporting US military planes in Shannon airport by allowing them to refuel there.

The great peacemaker Daniel O’Connell, said “Nothing is politically right which is morally wrong”. It is morally wrong for Ireland not to negotiate for peace, to support the close EU/NATO arrangement and to betray the expressed wishes of the Irish people to remain neutral. Being neutral does not mean being silent.

Footnotes

(1) The War in Ukraine Was Provoked – and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace – Jeffery D Sachs (jeffsachs.org)

(2) NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine – Jeffrey D Sachs (jeffsachs.org)

(3) These are the missile defence systems the US sent to Poland – CNN Politics

(4) A Decade of US-Romanian Missile Defense Cooperation: Alliance Success – RealClearDefense

(5) US Cruise missiles to return to Germany, angering Moscow – bbc.com

(6) Infographic: US military presence around the world – Infographic News – Al Jazeera

(7) List of Russian military bases abroad – Wikipedia

(8) NATO – Topic: Relations with partners in the Indo-Pacific region

(9) NATO – Topic: NATO’s nuclear deterrence policy and forces

(10) NATO – What you need to know, OR Books London and New York, 2024

(11) EU-NATO cooperation – Consilium (europa.eu)

(12) Building the ecosystem – Identifying connections for collaboration in Security, Defence and Dual technologies (www.gov.ie)

(13) Peace Groups to protest at Government Arms Fair at Aviva Stadium – Afri, Action from Ireland

(14) Are we heading for World war Three – and is Britain’s military ready? Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank.

What if the nuclear industry really isn’t safe?

Book ReviewMaking The Unseen Visible: Science and the Contested Histories of Radiation Exposure (2023), edited by Linda Marie Richards and Jacob Darvin Hamblin, Oregon State University Press.

By Caroline Hurley

Book ReviewMaking The Unseen Visible: Science and the Contested Histories of Radiation Exposure (2023), edited by Linda Marie Richards and Jacob Darvin Hamblin, Oregon State University Press.

While the 2024 State of the Environment Report by Ireland’s EPA warns that the inadequacy of measures to mitigate climate change is hastening nature loss, compounding pollution impacts, and increasing emissions, which are often hidden in misleading data, its only reference to nuclear activity is in terms of radiation monitoring. The decision not to succumb to ever louder industry calls for more ‘green’ nuclear energy as a false solution comes as a relief. Aren’t we in enough trouble?

I addressed the context of the recent lobbying stampede in an article for INNATE last February – https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/tag/caroline-hurley/ Making the Unseen Visible focuses on what is most dangerous about the nuclear industry, i.e. radiation, which is only detectable with technology, but is potentially lethal, in both short-term and long-term effects. The book captures perspectives from people, often of indigenous and working-class backgrounds, who are usually overlooked and unheard in ensuing political and legal battles. Many other citizens affected were never informed either, including Downwinders and bomb explosion victims.

Following an introduction by the two editors, the anthology consists of 21 chapters written by a cross-section of 18 expert authors sharing insights. Contributions coming from inside and outside academia span history and continents. An account is given of the lengthy disruption caused to sheep farming in Wales by the Chernobyl Disaster, which is the closest content gets to Ireland. The United Kingdom’s most serious nuclear accident, and one of the world’s worst, the 1957 Windscale fire, resulting in radioactive material reaching Ireland, does not feature in this book. People affected by the US Government atomic testing programme and representatives do tell their stories. They and others refer to the many forms of radiation sicknesses – autoimmune disorders, spontaneous abortions, sterility, thyroid and heart problems, leukaemia and many other types of cancers and birth defects following genetic damage. Major challenges of linking disease to a radiation source are explored.

The town of Richland crops up in several analyses, as it’s beside the Hanford mass nuclear waste storage site and B Reactor. New insights come from an emphasis on social and economic factors. The enduring burden on inhabitants of the intensely-bombed Marshall Islands is detailed. How information about the 1979 Three Mile Island Disaster was controlled is set out. Likewise, the handling of publicity during French nuclear bomb testing in Africa is critiqued. A range of those still suffering persistent harms after being involved in manufacturing nuclear weapons in Rocky Flats Colorado and in Kazakhstan are studied. The Navajo – Dine recruitment for hazardous but unprotected uranium mining receives attention.

When recounting controversies around uranium mining in India, Prerna Gupta confronts questions of risk, and how they were assessed, or more often, ignored. Another paper taking a meta-analytical approach is Jaroslav Krasny’s consideration of unnecessary suffering and how international law applies, which has ramifications for current wars and other institutional harms, whether nuclear or not. Three entries constitute poetry, which create particularly powerful impressions.

A moving statement by a Hiroshima resident on the 75th anniversary of the atom bombing is one of the last pieces. At the online book club I attended, organised by World Beyond War and hosted by editor Linda Marie Richards, a hibakusha (survivor of the 1945 bombs in Japan) joined the group, and described her horrific direct near-death experience caused by man-made weapons of mass destruction. Her biography, One Sunny Day, came out last year. About a quarter of a million deaths are attributed to those now relatively small atomic explosions, but indirect fatalities from generational exposure to radiation, equally relevant for the many nuclear workers, are estimated to be far more.

A short review cannot do justice to the stream of revelations, data from corrective scientific research, and personal testimonies, contained in this valuable book. Full reference lists are supplied throughout, for further reading related to this project that draws the various strands together through a humanities lens. The common scientific jargon can baffle the curious layperson, something taken advantage of by nuclear promoters, so accessibility is welcome.

During discussions, related texts were cited, such as Arjun Marhijani’s 1995 synthesis of scientific research, Nuclear Wastelands The first edition of Environmental Radioactivity from Natural, Industrial and Military Sources appeared in 1997.

In Mortal Hands: a Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age, by Stephanie Cooke, was published in 2009: J.D. Hamblin’s Wretched Atom, came out in 2021. M.V. Ramana’s 2024 book, Nuclear Is Not The Solution, sounds similar cautions.

But will this resurgence of interest in the area be enough, and in time? In March 2024, over 600 organisations from around the world signed a declaration that as a climate change solution, nuclear energy is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous. Even way back in 1951, an Atomic Energy Commission study concluded that commercial nuclear reactors would not be economically feasible if they were used solely to produce electricity. What would make them feasible however, would be sale of the plutonium produced. Plutonium is used to make nuclear weapons. The prospect of being able to produce “too cheap to meter” electricity had zero appeal for utility companies unless other parties took responsibility for the waste products, and states indemnified them against catastrophic plant accidents. Somehow, their unreasonable demands were met and the world put in greater jeopardy.

The latest gold-standard World Nuclear Industry Status Report confirms that high government subsidisation still sustains the industry. Though the share of electricity produced by nuclear power has been relatively high in France, when reactors are not breaking down, Macron admitted that nuclear arms manufacture depends on having a civil nuclear industry, or so-called ‘atoms for peace’. Nuclear energy and nuclear arms are birds of a feather.

Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) has become Ireland’s foremost eco watchdog. From a position 15 years ago of being seduced by the nuclear hype especially around long-promised small modular reactors (SMRs), the organisation now engages fully with the grave real-world implications, including the inevitability of more transboundary radioactive leakage on expanding or even retaining nuclear production.

Friends of the Earth Ireland take a more general stance. Greenpeace lacks an active Irish presence at the moment. The Irish branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament retains at least symbolic presence, for now, although the UK counterpart under Kate Hudson is becoming noticeably more vocal.

The Irish Government was instrumental in arranging the first international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NTP) signed in 1970, and to this day, officially claims to be committed to their complete elimination. However, as can be seen by US use of Irish airspace for military purposes in the Middle East, the country’s economic entanglements with bigger Western blocks wield sufficient pressure to compromise traditional principles valued by civilians. Around the world, there is a growing trend for governments to authorise state force to suppress activists peacefully demanding policies and practices that heed scientific warnings and international humanitarian laws. Many lawmakers and political actors are still choosing short-term political popularity over the earth’s long-term survival. Business as usual includes the nuclear industry, as spelled out by atomic scientists behind the Doomsday Clock.

This global crackdown on protest amounts to an erosion of classic liberties, and replacement of good governance by state negligence, driving increasing numbers of citizens to take landmark legal cases against their governments in pursuit of the transformative changes urgently needed. Instead of nursing dictatorial antagonism, government figures need to start self-identifying as activists and working with protestors and grassroots leaders on radical and urgent adaptation. Earlier this year, with the European Union’s adoption of a new Environmental Crime Directive, which includes crimes ‘comparable to ecocide’, all 27 EU member states got 18 months to transpose the directive into domestic legislation and ensure enforcement capacity. Real justice would end the impunity with which fossil fuel and other companies perpetrating environmental harms are treated.

The EPA’s five key climate mitigation recommendations are: a national policy position that aligns actions across sectors: rigorous enforcement of existing laws; transformation of key economic sectors, significant investment in critical infrastructure, and prioritising environment health for public wellbeing. This last objective in particular would forever be sabotaged by giving into calls for a source of energy whose routine emissions and waste products would bring unseen invisible sickness to our doorsteps for millennia.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize to the Japanese organisation, Nihon Hidankyo. This grassroots movement of atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, also known as Hibakusha, is receiving the peace prize for its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never be used again, at a time when nuclear powers are replenishing nuclear weapon stores. No nukes ever!

Making the Unseen Visible is now widely available.

Readings in Nonviolence: Review of “Constructive resistance – Resisting injustice by creating solutions”

Building the uncompromised alternative

A review of “Constructive resistance – Resisting injustice by creating solutions” by Majken Jul Sørensen, Stellan Vinthagen and Jørgen Johansen, Rowman and Littlefield, 2023, 219 pages.

Reviewed by Rob Fairmichael

This is an important book in exploring, in some detail, the concept and practice of ‘building the alternative’ without being compromised and/or bought out by the state or capitalism. Emphasis is put on both being ‘constructive’ and ‘resistance’ and in integrating the two; it was Gandhi who coined the term constructive resistance and it was an important construct to him (think weaving khadi cloth). However the authors do analyse different movements in different parts of the world and the extent to which they meet these values (e.g. charts on page 41) with some fascinating detail. The evolution of women’s shelters, the first arguably in London in 1972, transformed the debate about gender-based interpersonal violence and put the focus on men as perpetrators, and therefore patriarchy as a problem, in giving women an out from being trapped in so-called ‘domestic’ violence.

The authors are themselves well known, in some circles, activists and theoreticians. INNATE was a co-organiser of a webinar with Majken Jul Sørensen earlier in 2024 on nonviolent alternatives to the war in Ukraine.

An initial definition of constructive resistance in the book (page 1) is “initiatives where people start to build elements of the society they desire independently and in opposition to the dominant structures already in place.” The examples they give immediately following are of squatted, previously empty, houses being used for people to live in or for self-organised community centres, and Wikipedia as an example of challenging experts’ ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’.

Moving to a ‘new society’ of any kind is difficult when the old elites, or perhaps new but equally repressive ones, are so good at regaining power; “When constructive elements are left out, old elites can use the uncertain situation to their advantage to regain power, as we have witnessed in many of the recent unarmed political revolutions” (page 101) – think the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011. I might add that while the Irish Free State did undergo a civil war at the start of its existence, the new regime became even more reactionary on many social matters than the old, and something like the Sinn Féin/Arbitration courts, imperfect as they were, disappeared into the woodwork and ‘the law’ reasserted itself in conservative form.

Of course the action by councils and MPs of republican persuasion transferring their allegiance from Westminster to the first Dáil in 1919 could also be considered as constructive resistance in creating the new entity they wanted, unshackling from the British state. However on a social and economic level it would be difficult to think of examples in Ireland which fitted both ‘construction’ and ‘resistance’. Important as credit unions are in Ireland they are hardly trying to overthrow the existing financial system, and agricultural coops, essential in rural development in years past, are now large scale economic units within the existing system (and, it can be argued, essentially part of the problem of methane production by cattle).

One example given in the book is the development of nonviolent accompaniment and monitoring, partly developing from Witness for Peace (the US organisation, not the Northern Irish one) noticing that the Contras in Nicaragua did not attack while US citizens were around (in the period around 1983). We can learn and develop new methodologies as we do things.

An ongoing issue in the book is about compromise and being compromised: “A recurring dilemma for those involved in constructive resistance is how much to compromise radical ideals in order to become “mainstream” and make the alternative interesting and available to broader audiences…” (page 183). They cover Thomas Mathiesen’s concept of being ‘in defined’ or ‘out defined’ by the existing powers; ‘in defined’ is to be judged as no threat and therefore ‘one of us’ in essence whereas to be ‘out defined’ it to be depicted as a beyond the pale rebel, past redemption. Successful movements need to avoid either definition so as not to be either co-opted or cast out and rejected as crazy hippies or crackpots.

In dealing with the example of the Transition Movement (on a non-carbon future) the authors place this relatively high on the constructive scale but low on resistance to existing dominant structures. The Fairtrade movement is similarly placed.

The book has detailed studies of Polish resistance to the state and state (Soviet style Communist) control in the 1980s, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, the peasant-based MST movement in Brazil, and the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico. Partial success – before temporary failure – came for KOR and then Solidarity in Poland by being factory-based rather than street-based (where the state security could easily get people) and in having support from the Catholic church and farmers. “When the factory occupations became widespread in 1980, Polish workers had found a way to build small communities, minimizing the interference from the state. Solidarity set up a democratic structure with transparent decision-making, mutual aid, and solidarity alliances, and continued the development of independent free media. These were elements of the kind of society they wanted to see in Poland in the future….” (page 113).

The authors pinpoint the Freedom Charter process of 1955 as a key element of democratic involvement in the South African struggle. MST in Brazil and the Zapatistas in Chiapas are the current examples given of large scale constructive resistance. However nothing is simple and the authors analyse difficulties and possible pitfalls (e.g. the involvement and participation of women) as well as successes, though the distribution of land to 350,000 landless farmers in Brazil by MST is a success by any progressive definition – and some of the details of the organising involved is astounding.

300,000 people are involved in the Zapatista movement, in 1,000 communities, and it is based among Maya people. While they did have a short violent phase, and still have an army for defensive purposes, if they had continued with war against the state then, as the book states, they would have been wiped out by that state. Instead they have built self-governing and self-sustaining structures with the goal of changing relations between rulers and ruled without taking (state) power. Both MST and the Zapatistas have impressive grassroots decision making structures and processes. A European example in the book is analysis of an anti-dam campaign in Innerdalen in Norway 1978–82 which faced many of the questions that activists reading this may be familiar with.

Without vision the people may not perish but they certainly won’t get very far. The conclusions in the book include that “If movements were more focused on putting their visions into practice through direct actions, creating some of the necessary solutions, people might be more able to envision future societies free of at least some of the major systemic dominations, violences, and injustices. But in order for that to happen, people also need to nurture visions of a different society.” (page 202)

There are other examples of possible positivities from social movements which may or may not fit the category of constructive resistance. One generally problematic area I would certainly identify would be decision making within social and political movements; do we model inclusion, and how do we a) hold together with differences of opinion, b) allow different routes to be taken internally, or c) split amicably? Any large scale social movement is likely to get disagreements which risk the integrity of the movement or may necessitate different people going in different directions. Do we look on the ‘dissidents’ as traitors to the cause or do we celebrate different flocks flying in roughly the same direction but by different routes? Do we encourage involvement and grassroots input? Clearly this latter happens with the likes of the Zapatista movement in Chiapas.

One example of what could have been constructive resistance from the peace movement is Ireland is the “People’s Campaign” associated with Ciaran McKeown in the Peace People in the period around 1994. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/21987821321/in/album-72157613614963634/ This sought to develop an alternative assembly model for Northern Ireland based on the experience of the basic democratic model of the Åland Islands in the Baltic; each of the 570 electoral wards in Northern Ireland would have discussions locally and two representatives elected. However this plan was decided on by using traditional majoritarian decision making internally and the task – of persuading people in general that it was a good idea let alone operationalising it – was massive and it disappeared without trace after a few years. Whether such a system would have been any more or less positive or workable than what came to pass is open to debate which I won’t go into here. It could also be said that many community groups in the North during the Troubles provided a space for trying to build a non-sectarian or less sectarian future.

Mediation is another area in Ireland where there has been construction but extremely low resistance. In four decades mediation has gone from the far margins to the mainstream, with mediation looked on favourably by the legal system (in both jurisdictions in Ireland). It relieves a bit of pressure on the legal system, and is obviously preferable from the disputing parties’ point of view both in potentially avoiding legal divisiveness and cost. And lawyers have not lost out since they joined the mediation bandwagon as well in training up as mediators. Outside of that, at a community level, mediation has largely been professionalised which raises questions about accessibility for all (in terms of cost). But we are still in a better place to have what we have though community-based mediation systems are very limited.

In the political process, especially later on, in the Troubles in Northern Ireland, conciliation, communication and mediation efforts by individuals and groups helped in an enormous way to bring about the Good Friday Agreement, imperfect as that was and is. This mirrored the inclusiveness which those involved sought to foster. At the time some of this was considered traitorous by the state and by right-wingers who wanted to ‘root out the men of violence’ – even though the state itself secretly engaged in such contact when it felt it appropriate throughout the Troubles.

As stated at the start, this is an important book; it asks peace, social and political activists fundamental questions about how we go about trying to reach our goals. The problem for us is that we may feel so far from the possibilities of building a challenging alternative that we feel it cannot be done or at least that we cannot do it. ‘Living the revolution’ is always a big challenge but our work and witness can add to positive possibilities for the future. This book can be of considerable assistance in thinking about such possibilities.

Readings in Nonviolence: “When will we ever learn?” – Reflections on a debate

by Clem McCartney

I have been involved in a group that is concerned about the disregard for the multilateral system which guides international relations. I am thinking of structures like the United Nations; the rules and norms, such as the Geneva Conventions; and diplomatic conventions. People and states of all political persuasion distrust those systems, claiming they are biased and co-opted by their opponents, or are impatient to get their own way. They act unilaterally, using force or the threat of force, and the UN seems powerless to intervene.

This trend has been going on for a long time but it is now brought into sharp relief by the attitudes and behaviour of parties in numerous conflicts. At the same time we are approaching the Summit of the Futures at the United Nations in September which aims “to forge a new international consensus on how to deliver a better present and safeguard the future. Our group were trying to craft a statement in light of the Summit, trying to think what would make a difference and ensure that any consensus was not just empty rhetoric but that the state parties really meant to make it work. We had some differences of opinion, but did come up with a statement.

At that point I took a break, mostly walking. Walking provides a great opportunity to do some thinking and I was thinking a lot about what were they back provides a good opportunity to put down those thoughts in writing. So now I take the liberty to share the result.

I think our first point of agreement was that states are very preoccupied with preserving and asserting their national sovereignty, and not pooling any of it in order to support a system to manage inter-state relations, in contrast to the way that in society most of us are willing to limit our assertion of our individual liberty and accept the system of law and order, even if it does not always work in our favour. Our second point of agreement was that the assertion of national sovereignty is not always necessary or advisable, especially if it relies on coercion and threats based on military or economic power. We can list many negative consequences that can result:

  • More powerful countries can dominate others and get their own way

  • Getting what we want is not necessarily what we need or what the world needs, but we avoid pressure to consider alternatives.

  • Threats, coercion and unilateral action provoke anger and resentment which makes future relations difficult

  • They also invite counter threats and preemptive or retaliatory action in what ever form is available

  • The result is escalation and polarisation

  • It requires unsustainable investment of human, financial and environmental resources, which could be directed to human development.

  • Rather than increasing security it creates greater insecurity.

We all know this. Political leaders know this. And recent history, never mind examples throughout history, are salutary reminders, if needed. The creation of the United Nations is only the latest example of how, often after catastrophic events, states have realised they have to work together, but as time passes they began to subvert the systems they created to do that, and fell back on unilateralism to get short term gains. So why does the dominant discourse continue to be controlling our own destiny and prioritising security through power? Why does the human species focus on defending absolute national sovereignty, when it is a zero sum game? The assertion of national sovereignty requires limitations on the sovereignty of others. But no person “is an island, entire of itself ” as John Donne said, and, in international relations, no nation is “entire of itself”. All states need the co-operation of others. So why does humanity not learn the lessons?

Those of us trying to promote an alternative form of international relations, based on diplomacy, dialogue and co-operation, have every reason to be discouraged. The next thing we agreed on is that, at the present time we see no appetite for change in the world at large, or that the Summit of the Future will make much difference to the current adversarial approach to international relations. Our group have been debating two possible ways forward: national self restraint on the one hand and on the other, strengthening or revising the peace and security architecture to ensure compliance with it.

On the one hand some of us are very aware that we will be seen as naive and possibly damage our credibility if we support the idea of stronger regulatory systems as this will be a challenge to national sovereignty. In any case, we are aware that all states use legal casuistry to redefine rules and arrangements to suit their own purposes thereby undermining the system’s future efficacy.

On the other hand we are also aware that it is not easy for states, or any other body or person, to exercise restraint, voluntarily, in the use of their powers and privileges. Once given up on one occasion it will be harder to reassert it in the future.

Both strategies rely on personal and political will that is not there. If history and experience tell us that the existing system does not work, history and experience also tell us that states are unlikely to adopt either approach if they can act unilaterally to get what they want.

Our solution is to propose a two stage approach. First rely on self restraint and propose “a thorough review should be conducted over the coming 3 years by an international expert group to assess how existing articles [of the UN Charter] can be more effectively applied by member states to resolve political and military conflicts peacefully.” This might encourage member states to think about the failure of their current practices. But to encourage genuine re-thinking we also propose introducing the “threat” that if this does not happen it will trigger “a General Conference of all member states according to Article 109 of the Charter” in order “to discuss and agree among member states how the UN can be equipped for the challenges of today.”

This is quite an ingenious proposal but it still may not overcome the deep resistance to even discuss the dominant discourse of security through power and control, even though in reality control is slipping away from all of us. To be willing to talk about the nature of this resistance might be the beginning of finding a better solution. And so we come back to my question: why do we not learn from experience and past experience?

For me this is the most important question. We know some of the reasons but nevertheless they are often ignored. We are all aware of the US President Dwight Eisenhower warning in 1961 of the danger “of the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-military complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of mis-placed power exists and will persist.” There are clear and present dangers and challenges to worry about, but as noted earlier, the preferred responses create more insecurity, and there are other dangers such as climate change that are not treated as priorities.

Political leaders, including autocratic leaders, face challenges from within if they appear weak in the face of external threats, but ironically they have often drawn attention to those threats in order to gain power. A form of group think develops in which the leaders incite their followers and the wider public, who in turn demand aggressive rhetoric and action from their leaders. In the face of uncertainty and insecurity there is a strong desire to keep control of one’s destiny in one’s own hands, even if that is illusory in a complex world. And there are corrupt and Machiavellian characters and psychopaths who cynically manipulate these dynamics to gain power, but they can only do that in a context where the wider society is willing to allow them.

These elements are all certainly part of the conflict dynamic, but they do not really explain why the vast majority can not or will not step back and reflect dispassionately on the different options and assess which will lead to a solution which satisfies the needs of all parties and therefore is sustainable. Then on that basis they act as a restraint on aggressive assertion of national sovereignty. The Elders have taken up the idea of “long-view leaders” who do not take decisions on the basis of short term interest, and who do not ignore the negative unintended consequences in the future.

Peeling another layer from the onion, we come to the underlying mental processes that navigate all of us through everyday life whatever our situation and whatever our status. During my break I found this illustrated in a most unexpected way. Please bear with me for a moment if I seem to digress.

As well as walking and sitting in planes, trains and airports I also went to the cinema. In the small town where I was staying there was a very unique and cute independent cinema. From the outside it looked like a typical clapboard house, with a touch of Gothic about it. But when you went inside it had everything you would find in a multiplex, multiple screens, pop corn and all the latest films. It really invited one to watch a film, but with the choice of current blockbusters like “Deadpool v Wolverine”, the best on offer was the animated film “Inside Out 2”. The basic conceit of the film is that our emotions are little people controlling us and motivating us from a command console that looks like the bridge of an ocean liner or a space ship. They call on memories which are stored away to motivate us, manage our instinctive impulsive reactions, and guide the decisions that have to be made. Some, unpleasant memories are sent to the back of the mind and suppressed, but they do not go away. The film makers say they have worked with psychologists in order to be as close as possible to the real processes in our brains as signals are passed between neurons across synapses.

In the first film in the series a little girl is moved by her parents to a new town away from everything familiar, including her friends, and it shows how the emotions of Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust and Anger guide her through the experience. In the present film she is just entering puberty and new emotions arrive – Anxiety, Embarrassment or Shame, Envy and Ennui – just as she enters a competitive situation. She wants to win; she wants recognition; she fears rejection; she fears losing control. In this situation Anxiety and Joy tussle to guide the girl and look after her, and for much of the film, Anxiety is dominant. Anxiety may be a helpful emotion as it focuses on the dangers, but in the face of the dangers it tries to control all possibilities and encourages us to be single-minded and aggressive and push others to one side, reinforcing the original anxiety. Joy, and the possibility of Joy, are more powerful motivators, and, if anxieties are kept to reasonable levels, we are open to respect, engagement and co-operation.

I think Kamala Harris and Tim Walz must have watched the film, as at present in their election strategy they seem to be channelling joy rather than warning of doom and gloom. The film is a vivid depiction of how we are contested beings as we decide what to do. There is a nice scene in the film where Anxiety is calling on part of our brain full of little people to produce scenarios of what could happen, an acknowledgement of the use of futures thinking/strategic foresight. But Anxiety only recognises negative scenarios and when Joy encourages them to generate positive futures, Anxiety immediately dismisses them as dangerous because they encourage the person to relax and lower their defences.

Here is a little article about the psychology underlying the film:

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240730-the-key-message-that-made-inside-out-2-bigger-than-barbie

I recommend the article, but I am not recommending everyone should watch the film. It is loud, garish and kitsch. And of course it is facile to assume a child’s psyche is exactly the same as the psyche of political leaders, a society’s psyche or a nation’s psyche. The more people involved, the more the dynamics are amplified. And over time more and more assumptions, motivations and emotions get locked into fixed patterns: group think. But it does point us to the need for people, societies and nations (and ourselves) to go back to the emotions, memories, impulses and instincts that are drivers of attitudes and behaviours, surface them and test them.

And we need to also consider other possibilities that have been discarded and suppressed as counter to the dominant narrative of the day. I am reminded that during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the US Administration invited outside experts to challenge their thinking and work together on how to be firm in the face of the threat as they saw it, but at the same time defuse the situation. This can best be done through diplomatic engagement, dialogue, critical thinking and joint analysis with opponents, because we have to take into account their interests and they have to take into account our interest, and once that is established, often solutions can be found that satisfy the interests of all concerned. It helps too if those involved, individuals, communities and states are secure in themselves, not secure on the basis of military power, and have the confidence to take the risk of engaging with opponents.

Where does that come from? If their dignity is respected; if they are treated fairly and equitably; if they have access to opportunities; if they are listened to; if their rights are protected; if they feel that what they do matters: these are among the approaches for which the Shared Societies Concept advocates, not only because they are fair, but because when this happens then people and nations want to act responsibly and have that self assurance to be self critical and challenge their own assumptions and to reach out and engage with their opponents in joint problem solving and developing mutually respectful relationships.

During the Annual and Spring Meetings of the World Bank/IMF in 2011/12, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Club de Madrid and Center of Concern brought together representatives from global institutions to consider the global economic policy framework needed to support and nurture equitable development, building on the Shared Society Concept, which resulted in the Global Shared Society Agenda. Likewise, the Institute of Economics and Peace has identified similar characteristic of more peaceful societies which it called the Pillars of Peace. So as well as suggesting what should be done to make the systems function better or to reform the systems, we need to begin to raise awareness of the underlying dynamics at work and the need to address them, and we can then propose, through quiet diplomacy, ways in which that can be done. By creating awareness of a problem, those concerned have taken the first step in analysing how to address it.

The title of this piece is a reference to the refrain from the Pete Seeger Song “Where have all the flowers gone?”

Regarding the film referred to, Inside Out 2, see also https://opinion.inquirer.net/174839/developing-our-emotional-intelligence

Readings in Nonviolence: Stair na Síochána in Éirinn le Risteárd Mac Annraoi, Is abolishing war possible?

Stair na Síochána in Éirinn

le Risteárd Mac Annraoi

Coiscéim, 300 leathanaigh, €20.

Léirmheas: Máire Úna Ní Bheaglaoich

Seo stair ghluaiseacht na síochána in Éirinn ón luath-stair anuas, ó ré Chúchulainn, Cáin Adamhnáin, Foras Feasa, go dtí inniu, i 6 chaibidil. Tá sé ana-chuimsitheach, go háirithe ó 1800 amach. ‘Sé an laige is mó atá ann ná an tréimhse is déanaí,s a 20ú céad agus na dosaein grúpaí ba mhaith linn a bheith sa chúntas, mar Afri, PANA, Gluaiseacht an Phobail (people.ie), agus go háirithe sa Tuaisceart, Bishopscourt Peace Camp ’83, Peace People ’76, Veterans for Peace 2012, Women Together 1970, a bhí ag coimeád dreamanna trodacha ó chéile. Nach mór an gá a bheadh leo inniu! D’oirfeadh cuntas ar leithrigh dóibh sin, taréis an méid a d’fhulaing an pobal dúchasach. Tá liosta foilsithe ag INNATE.

Bhí páirt mhór ag mná sa streachailt ar son na síochána, Louie Bennett, Lucy Kingston, Eileen Robinson, Helen Chevenix, Rosamund Jacob. Fite fuaite leis an ngluaiseacht náisiúnta tá an iarracht frith-sclábhaíochta, an ghluaiseacht frith-choinscríofa, saoirse na ndaoine gorma, fuascailt agus cearta na mban, ag rith comhthreormhar leis. Bhí dhá chogadh ag bagairt. Chuaigh an dá chogadh ar aghaidh in ainneoin gach aon rud, sampla atá againn sa lá inniu, agus tionscal na n-arm ag ” fás” agus ag carnadh airgid.

Ní raibh Hanna Sheehy Skeffington sásta nach raibh an tacaíocht cheart dhá fháil ag mná sna gluaiseachtaí. Bhí Louie Bennett ag lorg athmhuintearais seachas cogadh cathardha ach d’ eitíodar í. “Tarraing cogadh agus bris síocháin”. Dá réiteofaí ceist cearta na mban sa domhan, ní dócha go mbeadh na cogaí chomh mí- dhaonna, mar is mná agus leanaí agus seandaoine is mó go ndeintear ár orthu.

Tír, talamh agus teaghlach is cúis le cogaí.

De réir teagasc Gandhi, tá an neamh-fhoréigean préamhaithe sa bhfírinne.

Tá léargas suimiúil anso ar na coimhlintí go léir a bhí ar siúl ag an am céanna agus an pháirt mhór a bhí ag Cuallacht na gCarad iontu. Dhiúltaíodar go hiomlán don bhforéigean. Muinín as Íosa an teagasc a bhí acu agus bhíodar seasamhach sa phrionsabal san i gcónaí. Bhí alán taistil dhá dhéanamh acu ar fuaid na hEorpa, Job Scott, Abraham Shackleton, Henry Richard, William Jones, Ennis Darby agus mórán eile. Bhí comhdháil síochána sa Bheilg, i bPáras, Frankfurt, i Londain i 1848, agus na céadta ag freastal orthu. B’shin aimsir na gorta in Éirinn. Eadrán a bhí uathu seachas troid.

Bhí Wolfe Tone diongmhálta ar son neodrachta na hÉireann i 1792, dar leis, dála Swift agus Molyneux, gurb é Sasana préamh gach oilc in Éirinn. Theastaigh uaidh an ceangal le Sasana a bhriseadh, scríobh sé billeog The Spanish War, ag cur in iúil dá seasfadh muintir na hÉireann go léir le chéile faoin ainm “Éireannach” seachas Caitliceach, Protastúnach nó Easaontóir, ba cheart don dtír a bheith neodrach, nár chóir fuil a dhortadh. B’shin í an aisling a bhí aige. I 1824 a bunaíodh an chéad chumann síochána in Éirinn. Bhí deireadh le sclábhaíocht i gcóilíní Shasana i 1834. Cuireadh Crosáid Frith-Chogaíochta ar bun in Éirinn i 1936 agus bhí teagmháil acu le War Resisters’ International agus an Peace Pledge Union. Bhí Peace News ar díol ar shráideanna Bhaile Átha Cliath.Tá an nuachtán san beo fós. Tá na “conarthaí” Eorpacha nár iarramar, ar a ndícheall ad’ iarraidh neod racht na hÉireann a chloí. Tá an fíor-scéal ar leathanach a 279. Dí-armáil domhanda atá le moladh.

Ní gá an leabhar a léamh d’aon-iarracht. Is féidir é d’oscailt ar aon leathanach agus cúntas beo bríomhar a léamh ar stair na síochána in Éirinn agus a bhuíochas san dos na laochra go léir. Bhaineas ana-shásamh agus tairbhe as an leabhar so agus as an eolas atá ann.

[Review translated into English]

Coiscéim, 300 pages, €20.

Review: Máire Úna Ní Bheaglaoich

This is a comprehensive history of the peace movement in Ireland from early history and legends like Cúchulainn, Cáin Adamhnáin, Keating’s Foras Feasa, in 6 chapters, however beginning mainly in the 1800s. The weak point is the scant coverage of contemporary peace movements of the 20th century, groups like Afri, PANA ,People’s Movement (people.ie), and especially those in Northern Ireland, Bishopscourt Peace Camp ’83, Peace People ’76, Veterans for Peace 2012, Women Together ’71 who endeavoured to keep rival gangs apart. I wonder how they would fare today? INNATE has catalogued many of these groups and they would warrant a separate booklet perhaps.

Women had a large part in the struggle for peace. Louie Bennett, Lucy Kingston, Eileen Robinson, Helen Chevenix, Rosamund Jacobs and others. While the struggle was going on in Ireland, there were other parallel groups like the anti-slavery, anti-conscription, freedom for people of colour, and the emancipation of women. Two world wars were threatening. The two wars happened despite protests,and we have echoes of that today. The weapons industry is feeding the frenzy in its race for profit. Hanna Sheehy Skeffington was not impressed with some groupings for not supporting women. Louie Bennett was looking for reconciliation and peace rather than civil war but she didn’t get much of a hearing, “Make war and smash peace”. If women’s rights were a priority, wars would not be so bloody, because the victims are usually women and children and the elderly.

Earth, land and home are the excuses for war.

According to Gandhi, non-violence is rooted in truth.

This book gives us an insight into all the conflicts that were happening in Europe, and the important part that the Society of Friends (Quakers) played in their total opposition to violence. They were steadfast in that principle. There were a lot of travels to and from European countries by people like Job Scott, Abraham Shackleton, Henry Richard, William Jones, Ennis Darby and many others. Peace conferences took place in Belgium, Paris, Frankfurt, London 1848, attended by hundreds.

Wolfe Tone advocated neutrality in 1792; in common with Swift and Molyneux, he regarded England as the root of all evil in Ireland. Tone wished to break the connection with England. In his pamphlet The Spanish War, he advocated that all Irish people stand together as Irish people, rather that Catholic,Protestant or Dissenter, for Ireland to be neutral and not take part in bloodshed. That was his dream. The first peace conference was held in Ireland in 1824. Slavery was ended in the British colonies in 1834. The Anti-War Crusade was founded in Ireland in 1936 and contact was made with War Resisters’ International and Peace Pledge Union, and the Peace News paper was sold on Dublin streets. That newspaper is still going strong.

The European “treaties” that were foisted on us, are trying to wreck our neutrality and “progressively increase our military capacity “. The account is on page 279. Global disarmament is what is needed. No need to read this in one go, you can dip in and out, and every short chapter reveals a very interesting and lively story. I found it a very pleasant read and the second reading can be more revealing.

– – – – – –

Is abolishing war possible?

Introduction

While we may or may not see the origins of war in the USA in terms as black and white as those below, the following thought-provoking short piece asks important questions about the circularity of the Military Industrial Complex there – and elsewhere. – Ed.

By Robert C Koehler (Transcend Media Service)

If we can end, let us say . . . slavery — the legal “ownership” of other human beings — can’t we also end other great social wrongs? Can’t we also end war?

As I ask this question, I am suddenly bludgeoned by an unexpected irony, since the United States ended slavery through a brutal war, with a death toll of perhaps three quarters of a million people.

But it was worth it, right?

Well, that’s what history tells us. It has essentially “made peace” with the war and now celebrates the moral objectives of the winning side, with all its carnage forever reduced to a statistical abstraction.

The topic of this column is the abolition of war — the urgent necessity of doing so — so, how odd it feels to begin by referencing a “good” war, which ended an enormous wrong . . . or at least forced the wrong to morph into a different, less legally blatant form of racism known as Jim Crow. (And when Jim Crow was defeated by the nonviolent civil rights movement a hundred years later, the nation’s racism morphed into such things as the “war on drugs” and an expanding prison-industrial complex.)

In any case, the Civil War — or at least its reduction to the simplicity of good vs. evil —is the manifestation of war’s staying power and principal talking point: War is always necessary, damnit! Both sides think so, and the winner is the one who gets to write the history. At least that’s the way it used to work.

In my lifetime, things have changed significantly, at least from the point of view of the United States, the world’s primary military power (at least for now). While war is bloodier and more devastating than it’s ever been, it no longer has much to do with winning and losing — at least from the U.S. point of view, which has basically “lost” (whatever that means) every war it has started since the Vietnam era. And that hasn’t seemed to matter. Winning isn’t really the point anymore, at least from the point of view of the moneyed interests of war. What matters is waging it — that is to say, what matters is keeping the profits flowing.

Or to put it more politely: What matters is keeping the sanctity of war alive and well.

Indeed, I’m reminded of George H.W. Bush’s comment in 1991, after the success of the first U.S. Gulf War.

It’s a proud day for the USA,” Bush declared. “And, by God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all.”

That is to say, the US public’s antiwar cynicism after Vietnam was now just more wreckage to be found on the Highway of Death. War is good again in the US! We no longer have to be content simply arming contras and fighting proxy wars. We can get back to the real deal. The Military Industrial Complex, which was born in the wake of World War II, has returned, front and center.

And that’s where we’re at today. As David Vine and Theresa Arriola write:

Those two forces, the military and the industrial, united with Congress to form an unholy ‘Iron Triangle.’ . . . To this day those three have remained the heart of the MIC, locked in a self-perpetuating cycle of legalized corruption (that also features all too many illegalities).

The basic system works like this: First, Congress takes exorbitant sums of money from us taxpayers every year and gives it to the Pentagon. Second, the Pentagon, at Congress’s direction, turns huge chunks of that money over to weapons makers and other corporations via all too lucrative contracts, gifting them tens of billions of dollars in profits. Third, those contractors then use a portion of the profits to lobby Congress for yet more Pentagon contracts, which Congress is generally thrilled to provide, perpetuating a seemingly endless cycle.”

This is the secret context of war — at least US war. The context is hidden behind the enormously effective public relations of war, whose headline slogans over the past few decades have mutated from “war on terror” and “axis of evil” to “Israel has a right to defend itself” — turning thousands and, ultimately, millions of deaths (deaths of civilians, deaths of children) into abstractions: collateral damage. We had no choice.

Knowing the illusions hiding behind the heroism and glory of war — the grotesque profits for some, the horrific toll taken on so many others — is crucial to establishing the urgency of its abolition. And then there’s the cost on the environment: how war poisons our ecosystems; how it murders the planet’s biodiversity; how it diverts our focus (financial and otherwise) from putting our money and energy into saving the planet, to making planetary destruction our primary effort.

And beyond all this, waging war requires the ever-presence in our national minds of . . . yeah, an enemy. War simplifies conflict, which is always inevitable and could be constructive, and turns it into “us vs. them.” And since nations spend so much money and effort preparing for war, they are always predisposed to turn conflict into the wrong kind of opportunity: an opportunity to define and kill an enemy. And step one is always this: dehumanize the enemy. That makes the killing of the bad guy (and all the collateral civilians who are in the way) totally fine, totally necessary.

And when we grow accustomed to the dehumanization of others — the refusal to listen, to acknowledge they have a point of view, let alone a soul — we simplify and diminish ourselves, essentially turning ourselves into our imagined enemy. And thus we’re always living in fear because war always comes home: Enemies always retaliate. Or their children grow up and retaliate.

So was the Civil War a “good” war, a necessary war? Ending slavery was certainly absolutely necessary, just as never creating it in the first place was necessary . . . but happened anyway.

The only lesson I can draw is that we’re not going to succeed at abolishing war unless we first succeed at transcending our exploitative interests. What does this mean in today’s world? Let the conversation begin.

– Taken from Peace Media Service https://www.transcend.org/tms/2024/06/is-abolishing-war-possible/

Reading in Nonviolence: Updating Adomnán: A Law of the Innocents for our time

Introduction by INNATE to the material below

In their mission statement, the promulgators of the Law of the Innocents, 21st Century (Seán English, Elizabeth Cullen and Marian Naughton), state that “While we have and fully support international laws for the protection of people and the environment in war, we wish to write this new law, a moral law; a bottom-up, soft-power law, a law of and for people around the world who are concerned about the current situation world-wide and the very real threats that war and the arms industry pose to all of us, and to our beautiful planetary home.”

War is often accepted as part of the nature of things. It is not. It is a human construct and like other such cultural constructs it can be changed or even ended and replaced with something more fitting – and respectful of all humans – for dealing with conflict. While conflict will always be with us, how we deal with it is crucial. Cooperation is necessary in various fields for humanity to survive and thrive and warfare is the very opposite.

We are reproducing here both the brief account of the history, and the 21st century Law of the Innocents/Lex Innocentium (but not the penalties or restitution sections or the Message to Future Generations – these can all be found on the website). Further details and information about getting in touch, and booking for the launch in Birr (Co Offaly) and Lorrha (Co Tipperary) on 21st September, are on their website https://lexinnocentium21.ie/

Please note that the texts involved are still undergoing minor development and changes. Up to date versions will be on the website

History of the law

This does not attempt to be a detailed history. It is a brief account of the history that has inspired the creation of Lex Innocentium, 21st Century. Most of the account of Adomnán and his Lex Innocentium is taken from the work of James W. Houlihan listed below. Anything appearing in quotation marks comes from Dr. Houlihan’s work. We have also greatly enjoyed reading Warren Bardsley’s book, Against the Tide.

Lex Innocentium, 21st Century takes its name from the original Lex Innocentium, Cáin Adomnáin or Adomnán’s Law, which was signed and decreed at the Synod of Birr (Co. Offaly) in the summer of the year 697 AD. In his Lex Innocentium, Adomnán secured protection in times of war (jus in bello) for clerics (and church property), women and youth (those yet too young to engage in war). While this might not have been the first law in relation to the conduct of war, it was probably the first law to identify specific non-combatants and to procure protection for them.

Adomnán was an Irish Monk, born in or around the year 627/28 AD. His parents, Rónán and Rónnat, were of two separate branches of the Cenél Conaill, whose homeland was in the region now known as Co. Donegal. Adomnán was a fourth cousin of Loingseach mac Óengusso, who became King of Tara in the year 695 AD and who was one of the signatories of Lex Innocentium. Adomnán was also related through Cenél Conaill to Columba (Colmcille), founder of the Abbey at Iona. Indeed, Adomnán was writing his life of Columba, Vita Columbae, at the time of the Synod of Birr in 697, the centenary year of Columba’s death.

Adomnán became the Ninth Abbot of Iona in the year 679. At that time, Iona was a centre of the Irish Church. The Abbot of Iona presided over a confederation of monasteries across Ireland and Western Scotland. Adomnán was a man of immense learning, talent and ability. Ireland of the seventh century was known for its religion and its learning. People from Britain and Europe ‘looked to Ireland for instruction in religion as well as other subjects, such as Latin, rhetoric, grammar, geometry, physics and computus’ (calculation of the date of Easter). However, Ireland was also a violent place, with conflicts, disputes, skirmishes and battles underway in various places at various times. Adomnán, no doubt, would have been aware of and witnessed violence in his lifetime. Indeed, it is suggested that it was his experience, with his mother, Rónnat, of witnessing the horrendous aftermath of a battle in Brega (now, more-or-less, Co. Meath) that deepened his abhorrence of violence against unarmed people whom he called ‘innocents’. While this specific account might not be true, it may well be that Adomnán was moved by such an incident. His very real concern for the welfare of innocent people in times of war resulted in the calling of the Synod of Birr and the enactment of Lex Innocentium (the Law of the Innocents).

Adomnán’s connections with noble families in Ireland, his position as Abbot of Iona and his reputation as a wise and learned man empowered him to invite kings and other civil leaders as well as bishops and abbots of the church to his Synod at Birr. In all, there were ninety-one signatories to Lex Innocentium, forty clerical leaders and fifty-one lay persons. They came from all over Ireland, Dál Riada (parts of Western Scotland-and-the-Isles and part of Northern Ireland) and Pictland (Scotland). It is not certain that all of the signatories were present at the Synod, but there is a strong possibility that they were. The law was an Irish Law to be enacted in Ireland and in Britain.

It is unclear as to the exact application or impact of this law in Ireland and Britain. However, there are some mentions of it in the records down through the years. Most interestingly, almost a thousand years after the Synod of Birr, in the winter of the year 1628/29, Franciscan Brother, Micheál O’Cléirigh, Leader of the Four Masters, discussed his copy of the Law of Adomnán with Flann Mac Aodhagáin (Mac Egan) of the lawyer family at Redwood Castle at Lorrha, Co. Tipperary.

The old Irish Order (including the ancient tradition of the Brehon Laws) was on the point of collapse, particularly following the Flight of the Earls in September 1607, as the British extended their control over Ireland. O’Cléirigh had been sent by his superiors in Louvain to compile a record of Irish Saints. However, he extended his brief to include ancient Irish history and Irish law before they were lost to memory. Over a number of years, he travelled the length and breadth of Ireland collecting histories and copying manuscripts. Within twenty years of the meeting at Redwood, the castle was abandoned and in ruin.

O’Cléirigh’s copy of Adomnán’s law is housed at the Bibliotheque Royale, Brussels. The only other surviving copy is at the Bodleian Museum, Oxford.

According to James Houlihan (2020), the reading of Adomnán’s Law at Birr in 697 was the first legislative expression of the concept of ‘innocents’ in the history of Western Europe. Houlihan advises us that it was not until the Geneva Conventions of 1949 that the concept of the non-combatant was again so clearly and explicitly defined. Indeed, Adomnán’s Law has sometimes been referred to as the Geneva Convention of the Gaels.

History is usually taught through a series of battles, wars, conquests and violent resistance. But real history is a complex fabric made up of many threads and themes. Indeed, there are many who would argue that war has not always been a widespread or constant part of human history or a naturally inevitable part of human development (for example, the Seville Statement on Violence, UNESCO, 1986).

The persistent themes of non-violence, education, justice, charity and peace-keeping are very real in the fabric of our history here in Ireland, and we are sure they can be found in the histories of other peoples throughout the world. A brief review of our Irish history allows us to follow such threads from Colmcille’s decision to walk away from a military life into a monastic one; Brigid’s decision to sell her father’s sword to buy food for the poor and Adomnán’s Lex Innocentium – through our history as the Island of Saints and Scholars, O’Connell’s non-violent mass movements for social reform; our membership of the League of Nations and the United Nations, and our long traditions of overseas missionary work, humanitarian aid and peace-keeping up to the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the Northern Ireland Peace Process and Article 29 of our Constitution which commits us to ‘devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality’ and ‘adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination’.

Our belief in and love of peace, justice, protection, education and kindness have always been with us. It is now time to give them voice. We hope that friends across the world will pick up these themes in their own histories and weave them with ours to make a better future for all of us.

Sources

Houlihan, James W., Adomnán’s Lex Innocentium and the Laws of War (Four Courts Press, 2020)

Houlihan, James W., The Great Law of Birr (2022)

Bardley, Warren, Against the Tide, The Story of Adomnán of Iona, Wild Goose Publications (2006).

Other sources

Bunreacht na hÉireann

The Seville Statement on Violence UNESCO (1986)

LEX INNOCENTIUM, 21ST CENTURY

The Law of the Innocents, 21st Century

INSPIRED BY ADOMNÁN’S LAW, LEX INNOCENTIUM (697 AD) and its protection of ‘innocent’ non-combatants in war, by other pertinent ancient laws, beliefs, traditions, and religious teachings; by international laws of our own time; by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and by the hard work, dedication and sacrifices of peace activists and environmental activists down the years and throughout the world, WE, THE SIGNATORIES AND SUBSCRIBERS to this new law, Lex Innocentium, 21st Century, believe that it is now time to launch this people’s law, a moral law, a law of principle, that can be used by individuals and groups to highlight failures of governments around the world to save humanity from the scourge of war; to call governments and international leaders to account for those failures; and to challenge all those who have a vested interest in the instigation, justification and normalization of war. We also believe that, given the nature of modern weapons, it is now time to extend protection from the scourge of war to our Planet Earth and to the Future. WE HEREBY DECREE:

1. That it is wrong, and a crime under this people’s law to kill, hurt, harm, or take hostage Innocent People in war, military operation or armed conflict, deliberately, consequentially or accidentlyy (whether a war has been declared or not) OR through siege, lockdown or the cutting off of essential supplies OR through damage to civilian infrastructure.

1.1 For the purpose of this clause, the term ‘innocent people’ will include all non-combatants of all ages and gender; conscientious objectors and those who walk away from war, violence or military operations of any kind; aid workers; journalists and peace activists (all ‘Innocents’ under this law). It is also wrong and a crime to kill, injure or harm the crops, livestock or domestic animals (including household pets) upon which these innocent people rely for food or companionship.

1.2 That Innocents under this law will also include ‘Innocent Witnesses’ – all those who are troubled, offended, distressed or traumatized by the harmful impact of war on their Fellow Human Beings, on the Earth or on the Future, caused without their consent, and caused against their principles, against their feelings of empathy and compassion, and against their wisdom.

1.3 That it is wrong, and a crime under this people’s law to force individuals to commit acts of violence and aggression against their will, their beliefs or their principles.

1.4. That it is wrong, and a crime under this people’s law to harm, injure or diminish the heart, soul or spirit of humanity through acts of violence, cruelty and war.

2. That it is wrong, and a crime under this people’s law to hurt, harm, injure or damage Planet Earth (an ‘Innocent’ under this law), her soil, water or atmosphere or any of her wide and varied ecosystems and living creatures, including humanity; whether deliberately, consequentially or accidentlally, through war or aggression, military operation or armed conflict, or through the manufacture, testing, storing or decommissioning* of weapons of any kind, including traditional explosive weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons and weapons yet to be invented.

3. That it is wrong, and a crime under this people’s law to threaten, put at risk or harm Future Generations of Humanity or the Future Welfare of the Earth, her soil, water or atmosphere or any of her wide and varied ecosystems and living creatures (all ‘Innocents’ under this law), whether deliberately, consequentially or accidently, through war or aggression, military operation or armed conflict, or through the manufacture, testing, storing or decommissioning* of weapons of any kind, including traditional explosive weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons and weapons yet to be invented.

*While we wish for all weapons to be decommissioned, decommissioning can be extremely toxic. Every care must be taken in the decommissioning of weapons to avoid harm. Given their toxicity, it is better not to make such weapons in the first place.

4. That it is wrong, and a crime under this people’s law to spend money and resources on war, including the stockpiling of weapons. It is also wrong and a crime for any individual, group, business, manufacturing enterprise, or government to assist, aid, abet or facilitate the harms and injuries listed in this law on the Innocents protected by this law. For the purposes of this law, facilitating will include ignoring and failing to try to end the harm through mediation, negotiation and peaceful means.

5. 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.

THIS LAW THUS DECLARES that War (whether declared or not) is a Crime against Humanity, a Crime against the Earth and a Crime against the Future

See https://lexinnocentium21.ie/ for further details and information, or to get in touch.