Tag Archives: Peace history

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

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , , , ,

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/

Readings in Nonviolence: Recent UK peace history, review

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , , ,

Review: “The Peace Protestors – A history of modern-day war resistance” by Symon Hill. Pen and Sword, 2022, UK£25 (hardback), 264 pages.

Review by Rob Fairmichael

This is a well researched, well written account of peace campaigning in the UK in the last forty or so years, since around 1980. Symon Hill is also a well known British peace activist who has worked for both CAAT/Campaign Against Arms Trade and PPU/Peace Pledge Union. It is a major undertaking and judging what to put in and what omit in a book of this sort is a massive task in itself.

One surprise is in the title in that no geographical attribution is given, and there is no explanation inside about his geographical unit of reference being the UK. It is to his credit however that he attempts to include Northern Ireland which may ‘look two ways’ but is indeed part of the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’. There are further reflections on the Northern Irish angle below.

The book is more or less chronological and divided into twelve chapters, some of which are single issue themed (the development of the Greenham Common women’s protest, the Falklands/Malvinas war, etc) and some of which cover a variety of issues. He has done his research well and able to quote from many different activists, new and old, which gives the book a very human dimension.

He also traces certain themes through the book, such as the development of nonviolent direct action (a major theme) and increasing public opposition or resistance to war. Both are encouraging developments though it remains to be seen how increased Tory legal penalisation of protest (of all kinds) works out in the longer term – in suppression of vocal dissent or in increased public sympathy for protesters. Only 22% were opposed to the Falklands war under Thatcher after it had happened. By the time we get to the Iraq war, or the possibility of British bombing in Syria, a majority of the population were opposed. One possible paradox he refers to is a high level of support for the British army but also a high level of opposition to being involved in war. Iraq and Afghanistan do of course receive considerable attention in later chapters.

I certainly got a good sense of the development of the peace movement in Britain over the period concerned, and I don’t even live on the island of Britain (though I am in the UK jurisdiction). Being involved in networking and various conferences and events in Britain over the years it was good to see a significant number of names that I could put faces to – and many, many more that I could not. While Northern Ireland is included in his coverage it is obviously mainly ‘island of Britain’ and it was interesting to read about, and try to come to terms with, the peace movement somewhere I am not generally involved.

While he gives relatively good coverage of Northern Irish involvement in international peace issues, and tries to cover Northern Irish ‘Troubles’ issues, it is in relation to the latter that I find difficulties. The first difficulty is that the Troubles began well before his starting point of 1980 (a starting point which makes sense in relation to international peace issues but not in relation to the Troubles) so early groups and happenings such as Corrymeela, early local peace action, Witness for Peace, the Feakle talks, Northern Ireland Peace Forum, Peace People etc are outside this starting point (although both Corrymeela and the Peace People are mentioned). So he is taking up the story a decade into the Troubles.

Having a conflict right on your doorstep and ‘in your home’ is also qualitatively different to working in opposition to war and conflict elsewhere, and one’s own country’s role in it. The significance of a death or killing for a family and friends is universal however, whether it be on a street, lane, village or countryside in Northern Ireland or in Afghanistan. Despite the attempt to cover some important aspects of the Troubles I feel that some paragraphs here and there do not fit well what was needed. It would not have gone with his chronological ordering but for me the only way to include and deal with the Northern Ireland Troubles would have been in a separate chapter which might have made this coverage both more cohesive and comprehensive.

But there is a huge amount to cover and convey and he does a remarkable job in his couple of hundred pages – and there are 35 pages of references and an index of another 16 pages.

Errors and omissions can creep in to any work, even the best planned. Presumably his reliance on PPU archives leads him to state that the PPU made it a priority to support pacifist groups in Northern Ireland such as the peace camp at Bishopscourt (page 45). While it may have been covered in PPU publications, I am not aware of any direct PPU support, and I was a Belfast organiser for Bishopscourt peace camp. The PPU did however show an active interest in Northern Ireland issues and produced a couple of pamphlets on it, and later on the Northern Ireland Working Group of the National Peace Council, which would have included PPU involvement, was involved (the NPC became defunct in 2000). Something like BWNIC (British Withdrawal from Northern Ireland Campaign), which was directly anti-militarist, was also before his starting point.

One omission which perhaps needs correction is in his reference to a failed attempt to get a statement together involving British pacifists and Adolfo Perez Esquivel and other Argentinian activists about the Falklands/Malvinas war, in 1982. (page 21) There was subsequently a joint statement made by Esquivel and Mairead Corrigan Maguire, both Nobel Peace Laureates, and while the latter might identify as Northern Irish rather than British it happened within the boundaries of the UK. https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/27350563020/in/dateposted/

Repression, police spies, attempts at greater militarisation (‘Armed Forces Day’ etc) and inculcation of militarism in young people are all part of the resistance by the British state to moves away from war. What is quite shocking, and I didn’t know or if I ever did I had certainly forgotten, was British army generals publicly expressing opposition to, and even threatening mutiny against, a Jeremy Corbyn government over Trident and NATO (page 191).

In ending, I would like to quote a couple of great anecdotes – which do your heart and activism good – from the book. In 1985, at a time of turbulence in international relations, the USA bombed Libya. During a resulting demonstration in London “…two pacifists, Pippa Marriott and Richard Yarwood….noticed that Selfridge’s in Oxford Street had a display of national flags flying from the roof……they managed to make it all the way to the roof without being stopped. They lowered the United States flag and replaced it with a Peace Pledge Union banner. There were cheers from people in the street. The two activists were banned from Selfridge’s for life.” (page 66)

And at a time of mass demonstrations against the war in Iraq in early 2003, the Stop the War Coalition had a phone call taken by Ghada Razuki there. “A woman called up and said, ‘I can’t come to the demo because I’m very old and not very mobile. So I said, ‘That’s OK. What if I send you a few flyers that you can have in your home and if someone comes round you can give it to them?’ And she said, ‘No, no, my dear, you don’t understand – I’m going to go and lie down on the M3.’” ! (page 130)

An interesting aside is the title of the publishers – Pen & Sword – who are mainly publishers of military history. In my understanding the words ‘pen and sword’ are contained in the aphorism that “The pen is mightier than the sword’, which is almost an admonition to nonviolence. If they are publishers of mainly military history it seems a strange title for them to have; yes, it may be the pen about the sword but it begs the question about whether the pen is mightier. I hope that Symon Hill’s book might be a small indication that it can be.

– – – – – –

Editorial, NN 290

Editorials, Nonviolent News,

Peace history: piecing it together

The concept of ‘peace journalism’ is now quite well established; this has an orientation towards avoiding stereotypes, sharing different perspectives, being critical of all sides as appropriate, analysing power relationships, working not to make situations worse, and exploring positive possibilities. But what is ‘peace history’? This editorial will try to explore some aspects of what ‘peace history’ should be in the Irish context although most of this is directly transferable to other situations.

‘Peace history’, while similar in some ways to ‘peace journalism’, has its own story and as a concept can perhaps be seen to have emerged in the period between the two 20th century World Wars. It has included analysis of citizen campaigning, women’s movements, and other aspects of life beyond the old and outdated concept and cliches of history as the story of wars and rulers. To a considerable extent it can be said that the norms of historical research have changed to include much more the stories of citizens, civilians and civil society movements.

In simple terms, perhaps the coverage of peace history could be divided into three parts. The first is simply the story of people working for peace for whom this is the primary commitment – avowedly peace groups and activists. The second would be those who work for peace as part of a broader commitment in politics and civic life (think John Hume in Northern Ireland, for example). These first two groups ‘run into each other’ and overlap. The third part, and this is somewhat different, would be analysis from a peace perspective of what others are doing, and this would be, naturally, rather more critical. It is not that peace history should be uncritical of those who explicitly declared themselves working for peace (John Hume supported Raytheon coming to Derry) but that they are more likely to be in accord with peaceful ideals than those who called for, or fomented, war and violence or were simply unconcerned.

Peace history is not explicitly ‘dealing with the past’ – although some aspects of it can be so. Dealing with the past is about processing, in multiple ways, the violence, death and injustice which has been perpetrated. ‘Dealing with the past’ can be a collective process but it is concerned with what has been done to individuals as well as groups. It can include formal or informal truth recovery as well as judicial processes to decide on guilt and innocence and also reparations and other means of helping people move on.

Peace history is about understanding who did what to try to avoid violence and move towards peace and reconciliation, the positive contributions that were made by diverse people to make a peaceful settlement possible. On the negative side it is also about understanding what factors exacerbated situations, leading to further violence and bloodshed, or further injustice.

INNATE has an online, downloadable, poster worded “The past is not water under the bridge. It is water filling a reservoir’. (see under ’Dealing with the past’ at https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/posters/ ). This is primarily about dealing with the past. The past is very much present in violent or conflicted situations, and an understanding of the past is crucial to being able to move forward. But that quote can also be understood in a positive way; we may or may not stand on the shoulders of giants but we walk in the footsteps of those who have gone before us.

Much of the work on the ‘Decade of Centenaries’ in Ireland (2012+), a decade now drawing to a close, could be said to fit the ‘peace history’ model. Attempts to understand and fairly portray all sides, and inclusive coverage of all victims no matter who they were in terms of class, gender or religion, and what side they supported, is a very close fit.

But there are, even more pertinently, conflicted narratives about the relatively recent Troubles in Northern Ireland.

INNATE has a – not very successful – ‘Civil society and the Troubles’ project to record the initiatives which peace groups and civil society in all its guises undertook to deal with Troubles issues. Emily Stanton’s summary of Belfast peacebuilding history in the Troubles in the shape of a tour https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/43899692560/in/album-72157676326740807/ is an important example of showing what was being done by a wide variety of civil society actors, not just those who had an explicit peace label.

Some of the contents of INNATE’s Flickr photo site https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland is also part of this story. All of this provides a counter to pro-paramilitary and pro-state narratives on the North. Violence did not need to happen. It did happen. Why did it happen? What would need to have taken place for violence not to have developed? How can we never arrive to be in the same position again?

More generally on the island of Ireland we are approaching – within a few years – the bicentenary of the foundation of the Hibernian Peace Society in 1824, arguably the first focused body on international peace in Ireland. It is well covered in Richard Harrison’s (out of print) 1986 book “Irish Anti-War Movements 1824-1974” https://www.flickr.com/photos/innateireland/20852875816/in/photolist-2kYs6km-xLGrtE Intriguingly, the FOR/Fellowship of Reconciliation had an active presence in Dublin in the period 1915-21, working on anti-militarism and conscientious objection support, also as detailed in Richard Harrison’s book. The FOR took off again in 1949 in the North and was involved in innovative cross-border conferences along with the Irish Pacifist Movement in the 1950s. Mediation is now an established methodology of conflict resolution, in most aspects of life in Ireland, which will continue indefinitely, and even grow; however at the turn of the 1980s it was virtually invisible and it has emerged and become mainstream in just a few decades – a remarkable achievement which should give us hope.

The size, durability and modus operandi of of different groups and organisations has varied enormously. During the Troubles, some groups in the North were extinct before they got their constitution together. The Irish Pacifist Movement ran for over thirty years, the Fellowship of Reconciliation almost fifty. The Peace People began big and became smaller. Corrymeela continues to work as an organisation devoted to reconciliation and a meeting place after five and a half decades. While numerous groups have had paid staff, most have depended, at least in part, on volunteers and many have been solely dependant on the latter. However the withdrawal of funding from some Northern groups following the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 led or contributed to their demise.

One of the features of socio-political movements is the phenomenon of peaks and troughs; sometimes such movements are sailing along with strong winds of public opinion, and engagement, behind them while at other times the going can be tough. The nuclear disarmament movement (CND), for example, fits this pattern, with at least a couple of peaks since it began at the end of the 1950s. However one of the features of Richard Harrison’s 1986 book is the implicit advice “don’t worry if one group dies, another will come along soon”. Of course if we can keep going when that going is tough, then there may be greater preparedness for when the cause becomes more popular again. There are no easy answers and discernment is required as to where we should put our efforts.

There are also many honourable examples in mainstream Irish history of action for peace. Northerner Sean Lester was the last general secretary of the League of Nations. Eamon de Valera was President of the League of Nations. Ireland was prominent in the movement for nuclear non-proliferation and opposition to military blocs. More recently Ireland played an honourable role in banning landmines and cluster munitions. However it is clear, from an understanding of which way the wind is blowing for anyone who has an eye for history and an ear to the ground, that the EU is hell bent on developing into a military empire itself.

This direction has been, and is, consistently denied by the political elite in the Republic (and the EU), despite or perhaps because of the popularity of the Republic’s neutrality; slowly, slowly, steps are taken to undermine that neutrality until complete participation in EU militarism is on the cards and possibly even membership of NATO. This direction is clear and the Irish public have their hearts in neutrality but their heads in the sand.

As mentioned in the news section previously, INNATE intends to have an online seminar on Irish peace history in the autumn, probably November. This will focus on peace groups and activists, both regarding international peace issues and work in and on Northern Ireland issues. Some supporting material will be produced to put the seminar into context and the INNATE photo and documentary site continues to add items from peace movement history. The seminar process will attempt to pull together some existing material and to point to areas where further research and study might be valuable – however the seminar itself is likely to be mainly the sharing of personal experiences of involvement.

You can argue for a long time about who first stated something to the effect that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. This is a truism although not necessarily in a simplistic sense. The fact is that a certain amount of history is cyclical. Nonviolence, however, is about stepping in to cycles and orientations to violence and dealing with them, or preventing them developing in the first place.

And similar situations may require different nonviolent responses at different times. Just as military generals have a tendency, to their cost, to fight the last war (look at the ridiculous and very violent British and French attachment to nuclear weapons which is more about self image than practical reality, even within militarist thinking), so we can feel something that worked last time will indeed work again. It might and it might not, and other factors may have changed. We need all the imagination and creativity we can gather if we are to build a more peaceful world.

It was Tony Blair’s strong backing for the Iraq War of 2003 which, disastrously, brought about UK involvement. In the lead up to war, one meeting was arranged at No.10 Downing Street with Middle Eastern historians. They warned that (their analysis of history showed) it was easy to go in (to war and the invasion of Iraq) but very difficult to get out. One historian reported, however, that the only question which Tony Blair wanted answered in this meeting was whether Saddam Hussein was uniquely evil. If Blair had been listening to what was being said, rather than looking for points of self-justification, then the outcome might have been different. Iraq and the whole region is still in a violent mess because of USA and British war-making; Saddam Hussein at that stage was still a brutal dictator, if somewhat constrained, but US-British action made a bad situation far worse.

To learn from history we have to ask the right questions and listen to answers, even when they are ones we may not agree or be comfortable with. But we can also take inspiration from our foremothers and forefathers who have struggled for peace, many in situations very much more difficult and dangerous than our own. In building the future we use foundations from the past. Some of those foundations are the hardcore rubble of past violence, some are positive and enduring structures we have inherited.

Of course peace movement history has not always been plain sailing or easy going. We have to critique our own work and, with humility and empathy, that of other peace activists, preferably through dialogue, but offering solidarity where we can. This is where, going forward, we need a broad understanding of peace to include participative decision making and mediative techniques so that when things go awry we have mechanisms to deal with it in accord with our principles. Here too we can learn from peace movement history. We may not be saints or indeed scholars but, building on the work of our peace activist predecessors, we can try to reach further towards a peaceful and just future which takes care of all people in all parts of our globe, not just being a part of a selfish and highly armed fortress in a sea of violence and inequality which is where it looks like we are currently headed.

– – – – –