Fight or Die: The Failure of Non-Violence
Scott Kirwin
The Failure of Nonviolence
On Sunday June 19, Aung San Suu Kyi turned 60. Aung has spent the last 2,523 days under house arrest and is only allowed contact with her cook, her housekeeper and her housekeeper's daughter. Meanwhile Burma remains under military control with no signs that the junta ruling the country will be gone anytime soon, having successfully stamped out pro-democracy forces in the nation it calls "Myanmar".
Burma is not the only Buddhist nation under military control. Tibet, has been occupied by Chinese forces for 45 years and during that time an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed. Beyond the occasional "Free Tibet" bumpersticker seen on American cars there is no signs that the Chinese will be allowing the nation self-determination anytime soon.
These two nations also have another thing in common: they are both glaring failures of nonviolence to achieve political goals. It's not for the lack of leadership: both the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi are inspirational, Ghandi-like figures. Unfortunately, while they inspire the spirit the military which controls them (Aung under house arrest, the Dalai Lama exiled) are much better at inspiring the mind to avoid any thought of freedom.
Robert Mugabe, the octogenarian autocrat that seems determined to take his nation with him to the grave, has broken resistance to his kleptocracy through the favorite tool of dictators everywhere: food. Having destroyed the agricultural business that once made Zimbabwe Africa's breadbasket by driving white farmers and their black workers from the land, he has now turned his sights on the black market, which people have come to rely upon for food. By shutting down the Black Market, "Comrade Bob" has forced people to rely on the government for food distribution. Amazingly, food tends not to show up in areas where the opposition is popular.
Nonviolence succeeded in liberating India and South Africa, so why has it failed in these nations? When you look at the history of failed nonviolent resistance - Hungary in 1956, the Prague Spring of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Tiananmen Square of 1989 - the failures have one thing in common: an opponent willing to use force.
Democracies are loathe to resort to arms, and so nonviolence has been most successful in democratic states. The Civil Rights Movement in the US owes its success to the unwillingness of American leaders to use brute force to systematically destroy it. The ascension of Nelson Mandela from prisoner to President occurred because the white-minority leadership could no longer stomach the level of violence it would have taken to keep the ANC from power. One of the bitterest historical ironies has been Yassir Arafat's blindness to the power of nonviolence in democratic Israel; had he taken up nonviolent protest instead of arms he would have become the founder of an independent Palestine alongside Israel a decade ago. Instead he chose the path of autocracy, a blind alley that has kept the Palestinians from achieving their political aims for over 2 generations.
In sum, nonviolence only works when your opponent has a conscience or has lost the will to resort to violence. In Burma, Zimbabwe, Tibet, the Darfur region of Sudan and China the authorities have shown that they have no problem with using violence to remain in power. Against an armed opponent who is willing to use violence, one has a choice: fight or die.
The likelihood of an opposition in Tibet and China taking up arms is minuscule; however it is not too late in Burma, Darfur and Zimbabwe. The opposition in these nations must consider organizing efforts in the West to pay for arms to fight for their freedom because nonviolence has failed. We in the West must confront the mushy-thinking that lay behind platitudes such as "Free Tibet" and "War is not the answer" while elevating Gandhi and Martin Luther King, jr to saint-like status. These men deserve their status, but so do men such as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln who both took up arms to fight for liberty. Those who believe that there are no absolutes must recognize the hypocrisy of statements like "War is not healthy for children and other living things." A diet of nonviolence will not fill the stomachs of the children starving in Zimbabwe and Darfur while the rulers have an appetite for their destruction.
UPDATE:
I should note about the Palestinians that their resorting to violence under Arafat is due not to a miscalculation on Arafat's part, but on Yassir's cold calculation that he could eventually destroy Israel through force of arms. Arafat was never interested in a two state solution; instead he clung to the dream of wiping out Israel and ethnically cleansing the Jews from Israel and the so-called "occupied territories". This is the reason why efforts such as Peace-Now's attempt to cross the divide and work with non-violent Palestinians during the 1980's and 90's failed.
Arafat was a dream merchant, and he convinced the Palestinians to believe in his dream of a land free of Jews. Since it is impossible to negotiate with a murderer, the Jews were left with no one on the Palestinian side to negotiate with in good faith until Arafat and his dream died. So far we have the former - not the latter.
I actually tried it twice. Those were two of the worst beatings I had ever taken. I learned a valuable lesson that week.
"Better far than cowardice is killing and being killed in battle" - M. Gandhi
Sometimes we have to make bad choices in order to avoid making worse ones; sometimes war is necessary. But that doesn't mean it is ever a *good* thing.
It is not democracy that protects non-violent protestors. It is the morality of the society. Neither is it the acceptance of the protestors point of view. Rather it is the acceptance that other people have a right to a different opinion - even if they are categorically wrong.
To put it bluntly, non-violent protest only works against people who are already inherently GOOD. It doesn't work against evil people. It makes you really stop and think. If the the GOOD people are the targets of the protestors, just who, exactly are the protestors?
To me, to be a protestor is a waste of my time. Reasonable people can be reasoned with. Unreasonable people cannot. Evil people won't respond anyway.
And from my perspective, the majority of those who engage in protests seem to want to undermine the traditional morality of the society, not improve it. It is the very definition of subversion. Subversion, n. a cause of overthrow or ruin.
And recent so-called non-violent protests in the Ukraine and Lebanon have only been successful in so much as there was a perceived threat posed by a third party - namely the US Military, or economic sanctions.
At least our founding father were honest when they set out to subvert King George III. They signed their names to a document of rebellion and publicly pledged their lives, their wealth, and their sacred honor. How many of today's subversives are willing to do so? How many of the protestors that march in Western society are even willing to acknowledge their desire to overthrow our society?
Essentially, the pacifist is a parasite upon the nation whose soldiers are fighting and dying to defend his right to be a pacifist. I agree completely with Scott Harris that pacifists, through their debilitating propaganda, subvert free nations, subvert their very own freedom.
I'm very glad that the Catholic church, which canonized St. Louis and St. Joan of Arc, and also most of the Protestant churches, have historically never been pacifistic, as neither have been Orthodox Jews (adhering to the Old Testament).
What is the question?
"War is not healthy for children and other living things."
It's even less healthy for soldiers! But they fight it anyway.
I like that one.
The John Birch Society had an excellent one: "Prevent Nuclear War -- Disarm Communist Missiles"
Ayn Rand had an excellent alternative to the despicable "Better Red Than Dead" and even to the noble "Better Dead Than Red":
"Better See The Reds Dead"
The style of that!
I had a unique experience of instinctual self-defense as a 14-year-old kid in a Chicago high school, back in the autumn of 1948. An experience that shaped my weltanschauung (world view) for the rest of my life.
We were all together in a freshman woodworking shop course. The local mafia comprised 3-4 class bullies who worked perpetually to fuck over everone else. I wasn't one of them. And that was my particular afternoon therefore to become one of their victims.
I was walking up a narrow aisle between rows of woodworking machinery, carrying a hammer in one hand and in the other hand, some artifact, a tie-rack if I recall it correctly. One of the shop class mafia was a fellow some inches taller than me. He chose to block my path, grinning down at me. I moved to my left; he moved to his right. Then back again.
Something in me must have snapped loose. The next thing I knew, I was on the wooden floor. He had punched me out. But my hammer had opened up a gash in his face, and drew blood.
The rest was more denouement than upshot. His face required stiches. My mother had to come to school and listen while the principal lectured me. A couple of his shop class mafia threatened me with dire reprisals that came to nothing. (These two later become Chicago police officers, and were indicted, convicted and imprisoned for acting as armed guards for a Chicago burglary gang.)
But one thing for certain after that day. Nobody ever bothered me again in that place. And as I walked through the halls to and from classes, I noticed that the few who even scowled at me kept their distance some 36 inches from my shoulder. Just about the length of an extended arm with a hammer at the end of it.
And one thing more. I was supposed to feel repentant about opening up his face. But the truth is, I didn't. I felt something else. It was satisfaction.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
A thing is good or bad based upon the reason why you do it - it is bad for me to steal your money to go out and gamble at a casino...on the other hand, if your money is the only thing preventing the death of my neighbor, then it is a good thing for me to steal it from you if you wont voluntarily give it up.
War is an event - it is good or bad based upon why it is happening. The so-called "War of Jenkin's Ear" in the 1740's between Spain and England was all around a bad thing - the Spanish were fighting to keep the Brits out of their slave trade, the Brits were fighting to get ahold of the slave trade. On the other hand, Hitler's attack on Poland in 1939 was a bad thing while Britain's declaration of war on Hitler over that invasion was a good thing - even though Britain was in no way directly attacked by Hitler's invasion of Poland.
Its is in the intent and the means used where we find good and bad; not just in the thing itself.
Scott - In answer to your question, the protestor in this country is usually a self-rightous twerp. Usually. Sometimes the protestor has a point, but less and less often. They'd be better of actually trying to persuade legislatures and voters through the normal process, but I think they'd miss all the drama.