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.

The meaning of democracy

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , , ,

SO WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?

By Peter Emerson

“There was rightful reason yesterday – majoritarianism was certainly better than many a minority diktat – but today, there is little or no justification for the use of binary voting and its consequence, majority rule.”

While many advocate ‘majority rule’ and believe multi-option disputes may be reduced, fairly, to umpteen binary votes, others talk of ‘the nonduality’ of supposed opposites. So could our majoritarianism be improved? Maybe the procedure which identifies Jeremy Bentham’s “greatest good to the greatest number” – the superlative to the superlative – should be something better than comparative binary voting. Let’s first question our own beliefs, and then query those of others.

Northern Ireland’s “Are you Protestant or Catholic?” was bad enough. “Are you Russian or Ukrainian?” is another blatant nonduality. In effect, this was the referendum question posed in (1991 and) 2014 in Crimea. Yet both are Slav (although many Russians are non-Slav, like the Udmurts from the Urals and the Siberian Buryats); many Russians and most Ukrainians are mainly Orthodox Christians, with a few Catholics and Uniates in Western Ukraine; they both share a common script, Cyrillic, and linguistic differences are often just dialectical. Yet they’re killing each other! When I cycled over the border in 1990, a sea of land was interrupted by the road and a slab of concrete: welcome, it said; it was as incongruous as the supposed difference between two grains of sand on the Libyan/Egyptian border.

Likewise in Croatia in 1991: the question “Are you Serb or Croat?” disenfranchised the partners in or adult children of a mixed relationship, not to mention any non-Christians and, most importantly, those who wanted to vote for peace or a compromise. It was another stupid – and dangerous – question. It too ignited a war.

Furthermore, in any multi-option debate – and in democracies which aspire to be pluralist, (nearly) every controversy will be multi-optional – a binary vote will be yet another stupid question. Let’s look at the logic of it all.

There are two types of binary voting: a singleton asks “Option X, yes-or-no?” while a pairing poses “Option X or option Y?” With singletons, there might be a majority against everything; with a pairing in contrast, there will always be an (accurate or inaccurate but nevertheless) definite outcome. (In the Brexit debacle, Theresa May used singletons and, as predicted, lost the lot; Boris Johnson used just one pairing: ‘his deal’ versus the worst of all possibilities, ‘no deal’; so he won… of course.)

Now those who want to change a status quo, option S, may propose a motion, option M, or an amendment to make it option A. So the eventual outcome of a democratic process could be A, M or S. Imagine then a committee of 9 persons with these outcomes supported by 4, 3 and 2 persons i.e., so there’s no majority in favour of any one thing. The procedure (first devised by the Greeks 2,500 years ago) is based on two pairings: (A v M) v S. {And if there are two amendments, A and B, the procedure is {(A v B) v M} v S, for three binary votes.} But all these votes are pairings, and the Greeks also knew, there will always be a definite answer, even when a majority doesn’t like it!

Sticking to just three options, imagine a dispute about the colour of the front door: should it be Amber, Mauve or Silver; and the committee members have the following 1st-2nd-3rd preferences:

4 like A-M-S, 3 opt for M-S-A and 2 prefer S-A-M. This means A is more popular than M, i.e., A > M by 6:3; it also means M > S by 7:2, and S > A by 5:4.

Therefore:

A > M > S > A …..

and it goes round and round for ever: the famous paradox of binary voting. And therefore,

+ if the order of debate is (A v M) v S, we’ll get A v S and then S; but

+ ” (M v S) v A, ” M v A. ” A; but

+ ” (S v A) v M, ” S v M ” M, so

…the answer can be anything. It depends upon the order of voting. In other words, the chair can get exactly what she wants, always with a ‘democratic’ majority in favour, either 5:4, 6:3 or even 7:2!

Now maybe a majority of the committee want something, let’s say A, which the chair doesn’t want – let’s say A:M:S = 6:2:1. In which case, he could ask the committee to consider another colour, amendment B, blue; so the vote would be {(A v B) v M} v S, or {(B v M) v S} v A, whatever. If subsequently nothing has an overall majority, she can adjust the order of voting to get, again, the answer he wants. In other words, in politics, the chairperson – or in business, the majority stake-holder – is all-powerful.

The conclusion is clear: majority voting is manipulable; some politicians are manipulative; and many decisions are manipulated… but still regarded as democratic. It must be emphasised, however, that

to take a binary vote in any controversy is at least unwise, always illogical, and at worst a cause of violence and war. If the question is not contentious, then by all means take a majority vote; but when passions are high and options are many, any resort to a binary vote will inevitably infringe upon the democratic rights of many. In a nutshell, binary ballots have exacerbated countless conflicts. Yet many seldom if ever question this methodology.

___________

Others think differently. “Asking yes-or-no questions is very unAfrican,” said Senator Ephrem Kanyarukiga at a 2003 press-conference in Kigali on the Gacacas (see below); indeed, one of the biggest European mistakes in sub-Saharan Africa was to introduce majority voting, especially to Rwanda. In 1994, the slogan used by the Interahamwe to start their appalling genocide was, “Rubanda Nyamwinshi,” (we are the majority). But “majority rule was a foreign notion,” said Nelson Mandela; our “democracy meant all were to be heard… A minority was not to be crushed by a majority.” Furthermore, this non-majoritarianism was true throughout. “The elders [would] sit under the big tree, and talk until they agreed,” was how Julius Nyerere described it, talking until they found a compromise, what we might call the option with the highest average preference: the 1st preference of few perhaps, but a good compromise preference of many. Alas, the European rulers, wazungu, were impatient.

In Ethiopia, if two people “in the village are quarrelling, then the court convened beneath the tree… will set itself the sole task of… conciliating the warring sides, while granting to each that he is in the right,” was how Ryszard Kapuściński described it. And the Kinyarwanda word, gacaca, means grass; grass grows under a tree; African decision-making was always ‘under a tree’, where people can sit in comfort and in the shade. Rwanda’s reconciliation process was called Gacaca, and Senator Kanyarukiga was speaking at the launch of the Gacaca report.

{Exactly the same slogan, ‘we are the majority,’ “Мы Большевики – [mwe bolsheviki] (we are the Bolsheviks), the word means ‘members of the majority’ – was used by Lenin in 1903, when 19 members of the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party split from 17, the Mensheviks (those of the minority), while 3 abstained. So the 19 were not a majority at all, only the largest of three minorities.}

___________

Asia has also long since questioned (the human and) definitely western tendency to put everything into pairs. The Hindus were maybe the first when the Bhagavadgītā said those who are “free from pairs of opposites [are] easily liberated from bondage,” while “…the nonduality of right and wrong [is] the state of a buddha,” quotes Longchenpa, a Buddhist monk of the Nyingma tradition. This is strange to the westerner, who has often heard, “He who is not with me is against me,” Matthew 12:30; (these or similar words have also been used by politicians of various persuasions).

Needless to say, (not just non-Westerners but) many Europeans have also criticised this illogical habit of reducing every dispute into binary dichotomies. Aristotle noted that Hippodamus “has a not unreasonable dissatisfaction with simple ‘yes or no’ verdicts,” and the first to suggest a non-binary voting procedure was Pliny the Younger in the year 105: hence plurality voting, (the electoral system is called first-past-the-post). Europe then descended into the Dark Ages, and I think the first government to use a plurality vote was Chinese, or should I say Jurchen, in the year 1197. The Jīn Dynasty was debating the possibility of war with Mongolia, and the 84 ministers split three ways: 5 voted for war, 33 supported an alternating policy, and 46 wanted peace. {In 1211, however, Chinggis Khan invaded China on the way to conquering all of it: the Yuán Dynasty.}

It is interesting to note that the peoples to the North of the Great Wall, those whom Beijing called ‘barbarians’ – the Khitans, Jurchens and Mongolians – all had relatively advanced forms of governance. In all three, the leader was elected (or acclaimed) in a gathering of the nobles; indeed, with the Khitans, the procedure was brilliant (Mr Putin wouldn’t say): after three years, they would hold another assembly to decide whether or not he (he was always a he) was OK.

But what was it that prompted the Jurchens to use a multi-option vote? China had used majority votes over 2,000 years ago in the Former Hàn Dynasty, albeit only in the Imperial Court. Whether or not the binary vote was introduced because, like the European rulers in Africa, the Emperor was impatient, I know not. And I don’t know if Pliny the Younger deserves some credit for the Jurchen vote. Suffice to say contacts across the Euro-Asian landmass were numerous, even when life-expectancy gave the average individual barely time enough to procreate and raise a family.

The debate resumed in Europe in 1299 when Ramón Llull spoke of preference voting, and in 1433 Nicholas Cusanus proposed a points system (which by historical accident is called a Borda Count BC). Along with the non-preferential approval voting, this was used fairly extensively in medieval Europe.

Next, what is now called the Modified Borda Count MBC was devised in 1770, closely followed by the two-round system (a plurality plus a majority vote) and the Condorcet rule (the option which wins the most pairings). Later, in 1821, England’s Thomas Hill proposed a knock-out system, the alternative vote AV (which in elections is often called the single transferable vote, STV).

Sadly, many politicians prefer the win-or-lose binary vote. The BC/MBC, for example, was adopted in France by l’Académie des Sciences… in revolutionary times. l’Académie became l’Institut Français, and it had a new boss. Not liking the concept of consensus, he reverted to majority voting. Hence the 1803 referendum. He was the only candidate. And thus he was elected l’empereur, the world’s first ‘democratic dictator’, we might say: Napoléon. Sadly, today in France, hardly anyone knows about he who first devised the MBC, Jean-Charles de Borda.

___________

The MBC is the world’s first always-non-majoritarian, voting procedure. Instead of reducing everything to a short-list of two options or a series of binary battles, those concerned reduce everything to a short list of about 5 options – (ideal for a multi-party parliament). Then they vote. Let’s imagine a debate on just four options, in which 100 MPs have the following preferences:

Preferences

Number of Voters

55

20

15

10

1st

W

X

Y

Z

2nd

X

Y

X

X

3rd

Y

Z

Z

Y

4th

Z

W

W

W

Winning every pairing, option W is the Condorcet winner. But if we take every preference cast into account, then the obvious collective choice is option X, the 1st preference of only 20, but the 2nd preference of everyone else!

Now you might think that the W supporters, knowing that option X is very popular amongst the other members, will give option X their last preference… but that would mean that Y would win on a score of 305, compared to W’s 265, Z’s 220 and X’s 210.

Furthermore, if the debate were about tax levels – W-X-Y-Z at 30-40-50-60% – (or about Brexit: the UK in the EU, EEA, CU or WTO), there would be a logical way for anyone to vote: W-X-Y-Z perhaps, or Z-Y-X-W, or maybe X-W-Y-Z, or X-Y-W-Z or X-Y-Z-W. But the MP who votes, say, X-Z-W-Y… 40-60-30-50%, (EEA-WTO-EU-CU), oh his sanity will doubtless be questioned by his constituents and the media.

Admittedly, the W folk could submit just three preferences, vote just W-Y-Z, and give X nothing; this would reduce their own score from (55 x 4) = 220 to (55 x 3) = 165. But their leaders might find it difficult to persuade their followers to give Y and Z a preference, while giving their obvious second-best preference nothing. And if they give their favourite W a 1st preference only, W will lose everything – W 100, X 155, Y 140, Z 110 – and come last!

___________

Human nature being what it is, people are much more likely to vote ‘sincerely’ – as the jargon describes it, giving a true representation of their preferences – with the MBC. Why then do we still use the primitive, divisive, and often extremely inaccurate binary vote, especially when we know more precise methodologies are available? And when we know binary voting can be a cause of war!? Is it because (not just Napoléon but) many politicians like a win-or-lose polity, not least because they want to win, and win everything. Indeed, some of them would prefer to maintain this system, even if it means losing today, in the hope that they might win tomorrow. And many of them – not least the likes of Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, Modi and so on – don’t like the idea of compromise. So they won’t even consider alternatives to binary voting. Alas, nor too do many in the media and even academia. That which the late Professor Sir Michael Dummett called “the mystique of the majority,” appears to be, as it were, enshrined on a tablet of stone.

Admittedly, the COPs have realised that consensus cannot best be achieved in binary voting… but not yet have they considered multi-optional let alone preferential voting. They know the very survival of our species depends on our collective decisions – and what we decide depends so much on how we decide – so they know that COP decision-making must be non-majoritarian; yet the UN and so many others fail to consider the potential benefits of the all-inclusive MBC.

And so, to answer the question – What is Democracy? – we first state the principle: democracy is for everybody, men and women, black and white, Arab and Jew, etc., and not just for a/the majority. Secondly, we all share a responsibility to reach collective agreements. And thirdly, while everyone has the right to vote, none have the right to veto. Accordingly, in debating any controversy, nothing is binary, and the democratic decision is the option which gains the highest average preference. An average involves every MP, so governance should be based on all-party power-sharing. There was rightful reason yesterday – majoritarianism was certainly better than many a minority diktat – but today, there is little or no justification for the use of binary voting and its consequence, majority rule.

Accordingly, to take a current conflict, given that the population of Israel is 20% Arab, the members of the Knesset should be about 20 (and not just 10%) Arab, and their percentage in the government should also be about 20% and not, as is currently the case, zero. As in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Rwanda, Ukraine, and throughout the Middle East, majoritarianism was/is part of the problem. So maybe those who want peace in Gaza and beyond should first initiate preferential decision-making and all-party power-sharing in the Dáil.

Peter Emerson

Inner Mongolia, 23.5.2025.

www.deborda.org

Readings in Nonviolence: Nonviolence and climate change – Healing our relationship with the Earth

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , ,

by Kate Laverty

Nonviolence is often spoken of in the context of human conflict, but its scope is far broader. To live non-violently is to reject harm in all its forms—including the harm we inflict on the natural world.

As I water the plants in our community garden in Forthspring, and tenderly feed the olive trees from Palestine we’re keeping safe for our partners in Gairdin An Phobail, I am reminded that climate change, deforestation, pollution, and mass extinction are not merely environmental issues; they are forms of violence. They are violations of our sacred relationship with the Earth and with each other.

Pope Francis, in Laudato Si’, his landmark encyclical on the environment, writes:

“The earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor… We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth.”

His words call us to recognize ecological degradation not just as a crisis of the planet, but as a moral failure—a betrayal of our interconnectedness. In this light, ecological action becomes an act of nonviolence: a commitment to preserving life, honouring creation, and repairing harm.

Islamic perspectives also offer profound insight into this ethic of care. Renowned scholar and peace activist Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, a Muslim practitioner of nonviolence, taught:

“Violence begins when man sees himself as master, not servant, of the world.”

He urged Muslims to embrace rahma—compassion—as the lens through which to relate not just to other people, but to all living beings. In the Qur’an, humans are called khalifah—stewards of the Earth. Stewardship implies responsibility, humility, and restraint. It is a sacred trust, not a license to dominate or destroy. I am mindful of this as I stand with the loppers in in our community garden in Forthspring, preparing to prune back brambles which have overtaken the pathway – every cut must be intentional.

The violence we do to the environment mirrors the violence we allow in our societies: exploitation, neglect, and short-term thinking at the cost of long-term peace. The burning of fossil fuels, the razing of forests, the poisoning of waters—all stem from the same root causes as interpersonal violence: greed, disconnection, and disregard for life.

Practising nonviolence for the Earth

If we accept that ecological destruction is a form of violence, then we must also accept that ecological protection is a form of nonviolent resistance. The methodologies of nonviolence—well established in social justice movements—can guide our response to the climate crisis.

In Kingian Nonviolence, developed from the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., six core principles form the foundation of practice. Among them:

  • Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice, not people

  • Nonviolence chooses love instead of hate

  • Nonviolence believes the universe is on the side of justice

These principles challenge us to confront the systemic roots of environmental harm—colonialism, capitalism, and extractivism—without turning to dehumanization or despair. They encourage creative, disciplined action: organizing, educating, lobbying, marching, blockading, and building alternative systems rooted in equity and care.

Nonviolence is not passive—it is active resistance rooted in moral courage. Movements like Extinction Rebellion, Fridays for Future, and countless Indigenous-led land protection campaigns are expressions of this active, compassionate resistance. They use tactics such as civil disobedience, symbolic protest, community organizing, and storytelling to call attention to the urgency of climate justice.

Another methodology—Gandhian Satyagraha (truth-force)—calls us to live in alignment with truth, even when it means sacrifice. For Gandhi, nonviolence was a way of life grounded in simplicity, humility, and service. Applied to climate change, it urges us to reduce our consumption, live closer to the Earth, and reject systems that thrive on domination and excess.

A revolutionary kindness

To practice nonviolence in the age of climate collapse is to live differently. It is to advocate for sustainable systems, to support climate justice movements, to hold corporations and governments accountable, and to make personal choices that reflect reverence for the Earth. It is also to listen—to indigenous wisdom, to frontline communities, and to young people crying out for a liveable future.

Thich Nhat Hanh, a Zen Buddhist monk and peace activist., wrote that “When we harm the Earth, we harm ourselves. The Earth is not just our environment. The Earth is us.”

The same forces that exploit the planet also exploit people. Environmental nonviolence is therefore deeply entwined with social justice.

And perhaps more than anything, nonviolence calls us to believe that healing is possible—not only between people, but between humanity and the Earth. By living with intention, compassion, and courage, we help craft a future rooted in justice and peace for all beings.

–

As reported in Nonviolent News 328, Kate Laverty as director of Forthspring Intercommunity Group in Belfast is working for it to become the Nonviolence Institute in Northern Ireland. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/2025/04/01/readings-in-nonviolence-nonviolence-and-plans-for-a-nonviolence-institute-in-belfast/ You can contact her at phone 07746984833 or email director@forthpsring.com

NATO – an analysis

Nonviolent News, Readings, ,

INNATE Introduction

The Irish government’s plan to ditch the Triple Lock on the deployment of Irish troops overseas is actually part of a plan That Dare Not Say Its Name. It is to fully sign up to an EU army, for the EU to become (even more of) a world power, and the perpetual mantra that Irish neutrality is unaffected in all of this is, of course, a dirty lie. NATO membership is clearly out in terms of public opinion in the Republic but to the powers that be that does not matter since a) Ireland is closely integrated, and becoming even more so,with NATO through its ‘Partnership for Peace’, and b) the EU is effectively the western European arm of NATO. Meanwhile some suggest that a united Ireland, if it comes about, should be in NATO, a dangerous non sequitur just because the North is already in it through being part of the UK.

What follows is a review article by Ann Garrison on a book by Medea Benjamin and David Swanson about NATO https://orbooks.com/catalog/nato-what-you-need-to-know/ The article originally appeared in Black Agenda Report https://www.blackagendareport.com/nato-was-founded-crush-communist-socialist-and-anti-colonial-movements-worldwide but we came upon in in Transcend Media (Medea!) Service https://www.transcend.org/tms/2025/04/nato-was-founded-to-crush-communist-socialist-and-anti-colonial-movements-worldwide/

NATO was founded to crush communist, socialist, and anti-colonial movements worldwide

By Ann Garrison

Medea Benjamin and David Swanson explain NATO’s supremely violent history in “NATO: What you need to know”.

The organization was born on April 4, 1949, when foreign ministers from 12 nations came together in Washington, D.C. to sign the 1100-page North Atlantic Treaty. Its original members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The treaty proclaimed its commitment to peace and the principles of the UN Charter, but “the real glue that brought NATO countries together was opposition to communism and socialism.”

It was created not only to counter the USSR, but also to defeat European communist and socialist movements and crush revolutionary, anti-colonial struggles. At the time of its founding, Britain, France, Belgium, and Portugal were waging vicious campaigns to try to hold on to their African colonies.

The USSR didn’t create the Warsaw Pact until six years later, in May 1955, in response to NATO. The previous year, it had actually asked to join, fearing the revival of German militarism, which had cost between 20 and 30 million Russian lives in World War 2. A shared commitment to preventing another war in Europe, regardless of ideological differences, could of course have changed history, averting the nuclear arms race, but that would have undermined NATO’s fundamental purpose.

“NATO also had an economic purpose,” Benjamin and Swanson write. “In its founding ‘Strategic Concept’ paper, NATO conceived the integration of its members to be ‘not just military, but also political, economic, and psychological. NATO countries were expected to disseminate an anti-communist worldview and to promote pro-capitalist, free trade economies.’”

No nation could join NATO without privatizing its economy. In 1997, then Senator Joe Biden told Poland that it would have to privatize its large state-owned enterprises like banks, the energy sector, the state airline, the state copper producer, and the state telecommunications monopoly.

US political leaders before Donald Trump have complained about NATO members not carrying their weight financially, but the alliance has fortified US economic interests favoring privatization, dollar hegemony, and prevention of bilateral trade agreements between member nations and the Soviet Union and then Russia. Europe accordingly acquiesced to US destruction of the Nordstream2 pipeline.

The weapons manufacturers of NATO nations, most of all those of the US, have also greatly benefited by sales to other NATO members, as have Israel’s. A section of the book on NATO and Israel details their exchange of military technologies.

Nations like Romania were made to understand that they could join only after making huge purchases of US weapons.

NATO expansion after the collapse of the Soviet Union

In 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the people of NATO nations all expected a peace dividend that of course never came. Instead of disbanding, NATO grew from its original 12 members to 32. In keeping with its founding ideology, it requires applicants to practice liberal democracy and market economy and contribute to NATO’s military operations.

Expansion actually met some resistance within the US foreign policy establishment, including the US Senate, with concerns ranging from increased costs, military over-extension overseas, and the consequences of poisoning relations with Russia by adding former Soviet nations.

Expansionists, however, always prevailed. The dissolution of the USSR eliminated the ideological competition, but the US drive for global hegemony proceeded apace. NATO, with its European junior partners, cloaked it in the seemingly moral guise of “the international community.”

Russia asked several more times to join NATO, but that was out of the question because it could not have been expected to subject itself to US military command, as the USA’s European partners dutifully did. “Every NATO member nation is required to serve under U.S. command during NATO wars, whereas the U.S. military has never agreed to obey any other nation’s command.”

Promises to expand toward Russia’s borders were never codified in a formal military treaty, but according to declassified US, Soviet, German, British, and French documents posted in the National Security Archive at George Washington University, Western leaders gave multiple assurances not to expand to the USSR’s borders to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and 1991.

All those promises were of course broken, and despite the advice of prominent foreign policy experts, Bill Clinton aggressively pursued NATO enlargement and expansion. When Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined in 1999, NATO made its way right up against Russia’s borders.

In 2004, it admitted seven more countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Albania and Croatia followed in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020.

Prominent US government officials, and Vladimir Putin, all warned that this would eventually lead to confrontation with Russia, as it ultimately did, so far by proxy, in Ukraine.

The Ukraine War united more of Europe behind NATO, with formerly neutral Finland joining in 2023, Sweden in 2024, and both countries’ weapons industries benefiting as a result.

Finland had already sent troops to join NATO in Afghanistan, and Sweden had participated in NATO missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Swedish fighter jets and support planes took part in the bombing and covert invasion of Libya in 2011.

“Against whom is this expansion intended?” Vladimir Putin asked. “And what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”

The answer seemed to be, again, that Russia could not have been expected to subordinate its military to US command. NATO and the military industries also needed enemies, as they now have in both Russia and China.

NATO’s history of aggression

NATO’s presentation of itself as a defensive pact has always been a lie. “Its readiness to act as a junior partner in U.S. aggression,” Benjamin and Swanson write, “poses an implicit threat of devastating military violence to any countries involved in international disputes with the United States or other NATO members.”

They recount the sordid history of the US/NATO and its junior European partners, which, with Russia in disarray, waged war on Yugoslavia, a nominally socialist nation and leader of the Non-Aligned Movement. The propaganda campaign about humanitarian intervention to stop ethnic persecution became a blueprint for future illegal bombing campaigns like those in Libya and Syria. “What U.S. leaders took away from their ‘success’ in Kosovo was that legality, humanity, and truth are no match for CIA-manufactured chaos and lies, and they doubled down on that strategy to plunge the U.S. and the world into endless war, with a subservient NATO along for the ride.”

Although there was some division over the US War on Iraq, unity emerged behind the destruction of Libya, which, like Iraq, Syria, and Iran, had nationalized its oil resources. “Altogether, 14 NATO countries took part in the war on Libya, along with Sweden, Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE.”

Destroying Libya was in keeping with NATO’s founding goal of crushing anti-colonial movements because Gaddafi had used his oil wealth to provide free health care and education to his people, fund projects to give African countries more control of their natural resources, and co-found the African Union, envisioning it as a military alliance and common market with a single currency.

A white organization with junior “partners” of color

Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty limits new members of NATO to European nations that are invited by NATO to join it, but it has junior partners of color. Its Mediterranean Dialogue includes Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia, and its Istanbul Cooperation Initiative includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Its “Partners Across the Globe” include Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. These include some of the most brutal, authoritarian, oppressive, and dictatorial regimes on the planet, making a farce of NATO’s claim to be defending democracy and human rights around the world.

In a chapter on NATO and international law, Benjamin and Swanson make it clear that NATO, and most of all the US, have never respected it, but that they maintain a pretense of global citizenship by acting in coalition, aka as a gang: “If attacking Yugoslavia or Afghanistan or Libya is illegal, then it remains illegal even if you bring together a big gang of governments to do it with you.”

In a chapter on NATO and nuclear weapons, they make it clear that NATO, again with the US in the lead, have thoroughly disregarded every attempt at nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Throughout the book they make the point that NATO, a US-dominated military alliance that threatens life on earth, is an unelected body accountable to no one. Its workings and decisions are anything but transparent and far from the eyes of citizens who elect the leaders of its members.

Alternatives

“Ukraine,” Benjamin and Swanson write, “is being treated as a sacrifice zone, and Finland should expect nothing else.” That makes further escalation sound like a grim inevitability, but, as longtime peace activists, they of course offer alternatives. These include pushing for adherence to global treaties, military and nuclear divestment movements, and nonviolent civilian resistance.

Montenegro, for example, set out to build an enormous NATO training ground, far too large for the entire military of Montenegro, but local residents put their bodies on the line as human shields to prevent it. “They organized events, handed in petitions, put up billboards, met with government officials, marched, protested, and—as of this moment—seem to have finally succeeded in eliminating the plans to destroy their mountain plateau for NATO.”

This battle, they point out, was waged on environmental and cultural grounds, and there are many such battles to be waged against NATO. Its member nations’ claims to be on the forefront of battling climate change could not be more hypocritical, given the carbon costs of its wars.

However, with the Doomsday clock closer to midnight than ever, the battle against NATO’s very existence and its trajectory is a battle for life itself.

Readings in Nonviolence: Nonviolence – and plans for a Nonviolence Institute in Belfast

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

by Kate Laverty

Nonviolence is more than the absence of physical harm; it is an active principle that shapes how we engage with the world, fostering compassion, understanding, and justice. In an era where violence—both in words and actions—permeates our societies, nonviolence stands as a necessary antidote, offering a way to cultivate peace in our daily lives.

At its core, nonviolence is about intentionality—choosing to respond to conflict with patience rather than aggression, with dialogue rather than hostility. It calls us to recognize the humanity in others, even when we disagree, and to resist the temptation to dehumanize those we oppose. Small acts of nonviolence—listening without judgment, speaking with kindness, refusing to perpetuate cycles of harm—create ripples that extend beyond our immediate surroundings, influencing communities and cultures. I’ve learned to practice this life in my work with the Nonviolence Institute Rhode Island. Here, Kingian nonviolence is taught over 3 levels in successive years. As a youth worker in St. Peter’s Immaculata Youth Centre, I’ve been privileged to accompany youths on their journey to the States to learn the key principles of the practice.

Nonviolence is also a practice of inner discipline. It requires us to confront our own tendencies toward anger, fear, and reactivity, replacing them with a commitment to understanding and reconciliation. This daily practice helps us build resilience in the face of adversity, allowing us to stand firmly against injustice without resorting to the same destructive methods we seek to overcome. In my decades as a youth worker, this has included democratic advocacy, peaceful protest, funding discipline lead contact sports such as Brazilian ju-jitsu where there are no strikes – only defensive grapples.

In a world filled with division and harm, nonviolence is not passive; it is revolutionary. It is the quiet, persistent force that counters cruelty with care, ignorance with education, and hatred with love. By embedding nonviolence in our everyday interactions in Forthspring Intercommunity Group, we contribute to a world that values dignity, respect, and true peace.

And I can delight in sharing how our vision in Forthspring is to step into nonviolence as the core methodology across our services which will see us through the next decade of our peacebuilding mission. In the coming year, we’ll welcome trainers from the Nonviolence Institute to deliver their Level 1 course in Forthspring, enabling people in the field to apply the practice in their daily work.

I’ve rejoiced in researching the emerging science of behavioural systems analysis to the practice of nonviolent struggle and civil resistance. I’ve found strength in recognising all the ways in which nonviolent action remains a viable solution; in ending violence against women and girls, in transforming racial hatred, in dissolving the walls of otherness between us.

But this is a call. I am asking for help. I am reaching in to a community already wise in the practice of nonviolence. I am asking you to meet with me, to talk to me, to teach me. If you would like to craft the Nonviolence Institute in Northern Ireland, call or email and help us in our goal to nurture a community at peace with itself.

– Dr Kate Laverty, Director, Forthspring, ph 07746984833, director@forthspring.com

Thales fact file

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

Thales Watchkeeper drones are used to kill civilians

INNATE introduction

Arms company Thales is a large-scale employer in East Belfast (manufacture) and Co Down (testing) with plans to open a third site elsewhere in Northern Ireland. It is the largest arms manufacturer on the island of Ireland. Here John Eversley shares some facts about Thales – much more in general can be found in his hyperlinks in the text as well as searches online and in books on the arms trade – and more could be added about the current war in Gaza.

There are some photos of protests at Thales sites in Northern Ireland in the album “The arms trade in Ireland including Thales missile company, Belfast” at

https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/albums/72177720297420924/

The irony of Thales being the largest ‘bomb factory’ in the North throughout the Troubles seems to be lost on most people. That a society which has undergone – and still suffers from – the trauma, collective and individual, of thirty years of political and sectarian violence should look to an arms company to provide employment beggars belief.

Thales

A fact file compiled by John Eversley

Thales has a joint venture with Elbit, an Israeli arms manufacturer to make Watchkeeper drones. Thales will say that these drones are for surveillance only so that only military targets are hit by other weapons. This is misleading:

  • The Border Force used Watchkeepers in 2020 in the English Channel. These were not used to rescue refugees trying to reach safety but to detect them before they were in international waters. Using drones avoids the obligation which sea vessels have to aid a vessel in distress.

In November 2024 the UK government announced that it would spend money on surveillance equipment to deter small boats from crossing the English Channel. In September 2024 they trialled a number of. surveillance drones in a NATO exercise. These included the uncrewed aerial vehicle Peregrine for which Thales is the prime contractor ; surveillance drones Puma manufactured by AeroVironment, and Ebee Vision made by AgEagle Aerial Systems. The Peregrine was originally bought by the MoD for .“protecting British interests in the Gulf”

  • The Torch 750 command and control software, Iron Sting and many of the IDF’s drones are made by Elbit Systems according to Forbes

  • Surveillance drones are used on civilian populations. Israel has used surveillance and armed drones in Palestine. One of the main drones Israel uses is the Hermes 450 which the Watchkeeper is based on. These drones have killed including, infamously, a group of boys playing football on a beach in 2014

  • In May 2021 Israeli air attacks including by drones damaging

When these things happen in Ukraine, we rightly say that they are war crimes

  • In 2020 the UK’s National Police Air Service said that it had made use of the Elbit Systems Hermes 900 as part of a wider trial’ presumably for controlling demonstrations

  • Thales makes biometric and identification equipment used by American and European immigration agencies. Thales funded research at Queen’s University Belfast on ‘object detection in cluttered urban scenes’. Such methods were used in policing the Black Lives Matters demonstrations in the USA.

  • In 2015 Thales entered into a partnership with WB Electronics in Poland manufacture ‘Gryf’ drones with a ‘strike capability’ based on the Watchkeeper and the Thales FreeFall Lightweight Multi-role Missiles (FFLMMs) which are made in Belfast – see below. Thales hoped that the British government would underwrite sales. Thales is currently trying to sell its Watchkeeper X drone to Poland. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is totally unjustified but not unprovoked. However, the sale of arms to eastern European members of NATO and armed drones to Ukraine are part of the narrative which Putin has used to justify the invasion.

  • In 2024 it was announced that the Royal Navy was ordering £176m of Lightweight Multirole Weapons (LMM) from Thales. In March 2025 the Government announced that it would buy 5000 LMM for Ukraine. Thales makes the detonators use to fire weapons on the RAF’s Typhoon aircraft

  • Thales has also developed a system for detecting drones called Eagle Shield .

Thales weapons are intended to be used against ‘soft’ targets too

In January 2022 the Royal Air Force flew 18 Next Generation Light Antitank Weapons, or NLAWs, made by Thales, to Ukraine. They are often described as anti-tank weapons. According to defence experts they are only useful at less than 6-800 metres when Russian strategy is generally to use tanks for long- distance barrage. However, NLAWs primary manufacturer, Saab says that ‘In Direct Attack (DA) mode NLAW can be used for non-armoured opponents and troops inside buildings, NLAW fires perfectly in confined spaces. It can be used against soft targets like trucks, buses, cars and helicopters. When fired directly through a window into a building, fragments will cause significant damage’.

People in Northern Ireland might be uneasy about these powerful weapons being used against buses, for instance, whether they have soldiers on board or not.

Thales makes Lightweight Multirole Missiles in Belfast. They are designed to be fired from Tactical and MALE (medium altitude, long endurance) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAVs), helicopters and ‘low cost’ fixed wing aircraft. Like the NLAWs they are designed to be used against soft targets too. Thales own publicity talks about using them against Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIBs) and jet skiers.

Damocles kills civilians in Yemen

Thales makes a laser-targeting system called Damocles. Thales says it has been used in Afghanistan, Mali, Sahel, Iraq, Syria and Libya. Thales itself says it is in service with the SU30, used by the Russians in Ukraine. There are various reports (mainly from the Ukrainian side) which say that Ukraine shot down to Russian SU30s.

One source says Russia is not using Damocles source says this never happened.

Thales mentions that the Saudi Arabian-led coalition in Yemen use Damocles and it is implicated in many attacks on civilians, including on a bus.

Academic links

Thales boasts of the research and training it supports at Queen’s and Ulster universities.

Alternative jobs: necessary and possible

The Watchkeeper has largely been a failure. The British Army originally ordered 54 of them. It is not clear that they were all delivered. According to the Ministry of Defence, five have crashed. Since 2010, Watchkeeper has only flown 3,000 flying hours or so. In 2020 a government minister said only ‘5 Watchkeeper airframes were in service as at 23 July 2020. 13 have flown in the past 12 months and 23 have been in storage for longer than 12 months’. In November 2024 the government announced that it would ‘‘retire’ the Watchkeeper drones which had proved unreliable.

In August 2021 Thales announced that it was selling its ground transportation (rail) division to Hitachi in order to ‘accelerate EBIT margin accretion and further deleveraging’. In English that means to increase its profits and reduce its debt.

Thales workers are highly skilled. Their skills could be used for work in which Northern Ireland excels, such as fossil free transport and medical equipment.

– – – – – –

Military Expenditures as a Percentage of GDP: A 100% Indefensible and Stupid Idea, by Jan Oberg

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

INNATE introduction:

Military expenditure is going up whether that be Ireland, the UK, Europe in general, or elsewhere, and various people, including Donald Trump and NATO, set particular (and ridiculous) target figures for others to pay on expenditure as a percentage of GDP. While the Irish government wants to ramp up expenditure considerably there is as yet no attempt to set a percentage target – but that is likely to come in time if Ireland gets closer and closer to NATO and involvement in an EU army.

As Jan Oberg shows in the following piece, this is a nonsense. There is no strategic analysis of risk. In Ireland’s case the government cries ‘wolf’ without proving what risks exist. And, coming from a nonviolent standpoint, there is no examination of what a ‘defensive defence’ might involve let alone consideration of nonviolent civilian defence – the latter being something which the 2023 ‘Consultative Forum on International Security Policy’ refused to consider. This is both morally and intellectually bankrupt. However the ‘percentage of GDP’ argument should be lambasted for what it is; a crude mechanism for bolstering militarism. Now if we had percentage targets for building peace, for establishing social justice at home and abroad, and for providing all citizens with adequate, affordable housing – that would indeed make sense.

by Jan Oberg

For years, NATO’s capacity goal has been for all its members to spend 2% of their GDP on the military. To many, this would be a ceiling, but according to ex-SG Jens Stoltenberg, from the Madrid Summit in 2022 onwards, it was the floor.

This goal is a splendid indicator of the frighteningly low intellectual level on which the alliance and the Western world, in general, operate today – intellectual and moral disarmament coupled with militarist re-armament.

Why?

A defence budget shall be determined by a serious, multi-dimensional and future-oriented analysis based on a series of more or less likely scenarios: What are we challenged by the next x number of years?

Next follows a matching of probability and capacity: Threats that are too big for a country’s capacity to do something about – like being hit by nuclear weapons – or threats that are too unlikely are separated and dropped. So are threats/challenges that are too small to worry about.

Then the threat analysis is left with credible, probable future threats within a resource spectrum that the country in question can do something about. It’s based on such a detailed analysis that a government presents its threat analysis and seeks to allocate, or re-allocate, its resources to achieve optimal security given its resources.

This is the way it was done up until the end of the First Cold War. One could agree or disagree with various governments’ threat analyses and priorities, but they were published in studies of hundreds of pages, were put out for public debate and then – as long as the West practised democracy – decisions were made.

•

But what are NATO countries doing today?

They drop all this – intellectually demanding – analytical work based on numerous types of civilian and military expertise and simply set off X% of their GDP no matter what kinds of threats there are in the real world.

Mindbogglingly, they tie their military expenditures to their economic performance: If GDP increases, then military spending grows proportionately! If the GDP slides down, defence expenditures will do so, too, regardless of the perceived or actual threat environment.

It’s like setting off a certain percentage of the family income to health expenditures whether or not any family member is ill.

And absurdly, it is actually a de-coupling of adversaries: We have more to fight Russia and China with whether or not they de facto behave as adversaries. In the long run it will end in the West sinking deeper and deeper into economic crisis – and with a steadily diminished economic performance, there will – according to this counterproductive idea – be less available to the military and warfare.

The more the West spends on militarism, the more its civilian performance and power will decrease, and the less there will be for ‘security.’ But our kakistocratic militarists don’t even think that far!

NATO’s original Military Expenditures As Percentage of GDP idea is a reflection of the Western delusional idea applied in many other fields that, when there is a problem, we set off funds to solve it and pump those funds into a system, whether or not that system is functioning, functioning optimally – or not at all.

In other words, money has become the measure of problem-solving capacity and quality; changes, reforms or completely new thinking and structural reform don’t even enter the equation.

Qualities are expressed in quantitative terms. And it is the end of thinking and common sense.

The 2% goal was meaningless from Day One – Intellectual dwarfs bought it and used it again and again over the last decade or so.

Threats to a country do not move up and down according to that country’s economy. Such thinking points to the intellectual inside-the-box stagnation of an old organisation.

President Trump has just increased it to 5%. When will it be 10% in this incredibly unproductive and parasitic sector that I call the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC ? It is the cancer that eats up civilian creativity, innovation and socio-economic development and militarises us to death – while the rest of the world is whizzing along and surpassing the West.

Be sure that the higher the percentage figure gets, the faster NATO countries’ civilian economy will sink into an even deeper crisis – because the economist’s First Law is that you cannot eat the cake and have it too.

The fact that no one – except this author – has addressed this Military Expenditures As % of GDP as intellectual BS – is, in and of itself, a threat to world security. Where rational, intelligent thinking goes out, militarism and war seep in.

With Trump in the White House, the decline of the West will go even faster. That’s why he wants a Greater American from Panama to the largest possible part of Scandinavia (with 47 US bases) and Arctic.

There may come a day when Europe sees fit to open up to Russia, China, and all the other ‘bad’ guys – if they want to have anything to do with Europe. I mean, with friends like Trump and his greater America – perhaps out of NATO and 5% of economic wealth wasted completely – who will need to point to old enemies in the future?

–

Prof. Jan Oberg, Ph.D. is director of the independent Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research in Sweden and a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. This article is taken from the weekly digest of Transcend Media Service for 27 January 2025 https://www.transcend.org/tms/2025/01/military-expenditures-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-a-100-indefensible-and-stupid-idea/

Women and justice during wartime: A comprehensive analysis

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

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

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , , ,

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

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

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

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

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.