I am not talking about deterrence, but simply about embracing non-violence "at all costs" (no matter what that might mean).
Hello,
Gandhi once said," liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood.” Consequently, the mysterious role of economic growth and its influence on the well being of the countries make interstate non-violence impossible because the wheels of economy are largely lubricated by wars and the selling of arms. As an illustration, the new American administration has recently signed quite a few arms sales deals with the countries which are involved in the most cruel wars against innocent people. Thus, non-violence policy is a myth and cannot be expected from unscrupulous politicians ruling the world today.
Best regards,
R. Biria
I personally believe it is the real strength but not always works on its way.
Resolving conflicts in non-violent ways means human loss is curbed, no war or conflict refugees who become economic burdens to nations that particularly are in the developing world, no destruction of infrastructures and no traumatic experiences for the population. Embracing alternative means of resolving conflicts such as dialogue, negotiation and mediation are less costly and end up in bridging hostilities and building relationships that are necessary for the progress of any state. We have many examples of political conflicts that have been handled through military might that finally had to resolve their difference in non-violent means through dialogue and facilitated negotiations.
Of course it can and I’d be willing to wager it is the only effective means by which an amenable outcome can be achieved. Look at the history of large scale violence compared to small conflict. At the end of hostilities there still has to be a meeting of the minds to map a way forward that is a win-win for all parties concerned. No opposing sides can hear each other when they are engaged in physical violence. At some point a truce is called and credible mediator is brought in to facilitate and come to an agreement for both sides. This individual or entity can be duel hatted and be responsible for ensuring both sides or all parties adhere to whatever agreement is hashed out between the opposing parties. Thereby finally arriving at a peaceful solution and containing the violence.
First of all, non-violence not always plays a principle role, at least in bilateral links, excepting some very particular cases. Non-violence mostly plays a sort of contextual variable in careful negotiations relating cease-fire and/or armistices. Sometimes is a sort of warning-fear behind difficulties in finding agreements. In those cases, non-violence is a peculiar kind of coercive diplomatic, like the Opiums Wars in the 19th.century.
Yes it can. In UK countre-terrorism in N Ireland it worked very successfully. Not shooting terrorists was a key tactic, the aim became to screw the terrorist organisations up from the inside by good intelligence on them and lots of moles on the inside, so that it became virtually impossible for them to operate. Result was the IRA were defeated. But it has to be part of a long-term policy, well thought out and operated along with the rule of law and maintaining as open a society as is possible. Much also depends on the conditions in which you are operating and the type of insurgency confronted.
- Contre-insurgency wars are confronted to a very specific contexts, difficult to be extrapolate to international conflicts. The logic of each one are completely different.
This contradictive, though highly important, normative question is posing difficulties in giving an answer, and may need some modification.
By asking – "can it function as…" one actually means, can it achieve the political goals (results). But achieving political goals is a "win win" issue, unless hard power for coercion is used within a "win lose" game. Clearly, the win lose is out of question when striving for non-violence resolutions, thus the win win is remained.
By making decisions within win win interactions one would either use his rational or social nature. Rational thinking is all about cost versus benefit, thus – "at all costs", which explains the question, cannot be relevant. Social thinking is all about meaning, thus – "no matter what that might mean" cannot be relevant.
In conclusion, I think the question is posing an inner contradiction of ideas, while looking for a solution. The question is very important but one cannot effectively deal with it as it is presented.
Nevertheless, a highly valuable idea is our commitment to promote the norm of non-violent behavior, thus maybe a compromise can help. Instead of looking for dichotomy in state politics practices, one may ask for promoting some of non-violent solutions over violent ones.
An example of a question may be: "what principles may lead towards non-violent state politics, and how can these be practiced to diminish the violent ones?" An example of implementation with a test case may include: first, the violent used and second, the description of the decision making scenario emphasizing variables that influenced its violent nature. Finally, present a reasonable "cost vs. benefit" scenario of a different decision making process; a one that would be attractive for use in similar future scenarios.
Such tiny steps may help promote a non-violent normative theory of states and inter-states politics, which as I percieve is the motivation behind your question.
There are two levels of analysis in the above discussion that need to be distinguished. First, powerful special interests such as defense contractors and military bureaucracies do indeed limit the possibilities for demilitarization in the short run. Second, however, there is nothing in the logic of international relations to prevent demilitarization, so in the long run it is certainly possible. This possibility is obscured by the so called "security dilemma," which overlooks a well established truth of military science--that it takes far fewer troops and weapons to defend a territory than it does to attack a territory. This asymmetry is the basis of what the peace studies literature calls "non-offensive defense" or "defensive defense;" see, for example, Bjorn Moller's 1996 article "Common Security and Non-Offensive Defence as Guildelines for Defence Planning and Arms Control?" International Journal of Peace Studies 1 (July). If the objective of military forces is the legitimate one of protecting one's territory from armed attack, this can be accomplished with anti-tank, anti-aircraft and similar forces, while the aggressor requires tanks, long-range aircraft etc. This lack of symmetry between the requirements of genuine defense and the requirements of illegal wars of aggression or "projecting power" means that countries can unilaterally disarm offensive capabilities without compromising their physical security. If every country did this, the result would be general demilitarization. The only thing that prevents this is the control of foreign policy by the abovementioned militarist special interests, which is quite different from saying that there is some "security dilemma" inherent in the logic of international relations that prevents demilitarization.
UN
CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
It is difficult to implement the non-vioence principle at any price. The risk of being wiped out yourself is very high if the other side realizes its advantage. And it will do so if it is not only prepared to use violence, but if its rule also is founded by dictatorship and not based on democratic legitimacy. But effective self-protection is no reason not to uphold the principles of non-violence.
I am thinking here of the simulation games by Robert Axelrod, who played the Prisoner's Dilemma Game in the seventies to determine the best winning strategy - with self-constructed computer-programs of the participants. The PGD has a special payoff-matrix. Axelrod's "tournamrent" was not about violence versus non-violence, but about cooperation and non-cooperation. It is well-known that playing this game only once, than for both opponents the Min/Max-caculation says: No risk, that means: very little payoff for both sides.
What's the best strategy if you play the game over and over again, against a lot of of other competing groups? The best strategy with highest output is: Tit for tat. This means: Take the first step towards cooperation, towards peaceful coexistence. If the other side tricks you during this first step, you have to do the same vice versa with the following next round - of course with bad results for both. But if the opponent answers your non-violent offer with a non-violent reaction, then both sides have only advantages over all other "players", always in furthermore repeated games. Because the payoff is high (Only "tricky" playing make the payoff a little higher, but this will happen, normally, only one time, because the tricked victim defends herself next time). Strategically it is not useful to consider only one Moment, deciding is the development of mutual reactions in a field of other groups/countries.
Hein, you seem to be assuming that unilateral initiatives in demilitarization necessarily come at some cost in the real security of the country that takes the initiative. This would only be the case if the country dismantled forces actually needed to defend their territory from invasion. However, if its military establishment maintains troops and weapons designed to "project power" or engage in wars of aggression (e.g. tanks, long range fighter aircraft, long range missiles), dismantling these unilaterally only diminishes the ability of its elites to play geopolitical chess games at their taxpayers' expense. This is the dirty little secret that militarist elites throughout the world don't want their citizens to understand. If academics are not going to be part of the problem and witting or unwitting tools of militarist policy elites, we need to distinguish between weapons and troop deployments genuinely needed for defense, and offensive capabilities that currently have no legitimate purpose for defense. For more on this, please see my earlier post above.
No.
As a unilateral strategy non-violence is not viable.
States that pursue this approach have a temporary luxury of facing no immediate security problems. This condition will not endure in the long run and an embrace of non-violence will not extend this condition in any significant way.
Here is my essay on this topic
Title: Can Pacifism be regarded as the way to peace or is it a fantasy?
Peace is a prerequisite for human progress. Happy International Day of Peace, everyone! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360000943_Flawless_Peace_Alphabet
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science