My post on how anti-war campaigners are drawing inspiration from Moriori peace traditions drew some trenchant criticism from Tim Selwyn at Tumeke:
Peace campaigners and most politicians, like our glib friend Phil Twyford MP, applaud Gandhi and his type of code of non-violence as a legitimate method for the oppressed to achieve their goals, and maybe even the only method. What the bumper sticker level of analysis fails to recognise is that a path of non-violence often leads to the gates of permanent injustice and genocide. The real-world examples are plain enough: non-violence as a stratagem by one rewards, encourages and provokes a stratagem of violence by the other. This was true of the appeasement policy towards Hitler in the 1930s as it was true of the Chatham Islands in the 1830s.
And from daveo over at The Standard in a piece titled Twyford and the Idiocy of Pacifism:
A strict adherence to non-violence is exactly what an oppressive force needs from its opponents in order to take power and to stay in power. Labour should be careful to avoid confusing the honourable socialist tradition of anti-imperialism with the slave ideology of pacifism.
Good! First, to clarify my own position, I am not a pacifist. I believe some things are worth fighting for. I like to think I would have volunteered to fight fascism in World War Two. And I think keeping the armed struggle going in South Africa and Timor Leste helped to keep their struggles alive even if they were won primarily by non-violent means. I want us to have a bigger, more capable armed forces because as an internationalist I think we need to be willing to do our bit in conflicts and humanitarian emergencies, and sometimes that means sending troops. We should always make that decision carefully though.
Labour is not pacifist either. We locked conscientious objectors up in WW2, and treated them worse than most other Allied nations. Even though Labour leaders like Peter Fraser had themselves been jailed for opposing conscription during the great imperialist war of 1914-18. (See David Grant’s excellent Field Punishment N0. 1 for more on this.)
But I do think we can learn a great deal from the pacifist tradition.
War is hell. Always. All non-violent avenues should be explored in order to avoid armed conflict. If social change can be achieved through peaceful, democratic means, all the better.
Our society is far too violent. We need to get better at using non-violent ways of resolving conflict in our homes, school playgrounds, our pubs, and on the sidelines of our children’s football games. The Peace Foundation’s Cool Schools programme is a good example of this kind of work.
Other cultures, like the Moriori, can teach us a lot about non-violence. Indigenous peace traditions have been important in conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation processes in countless international conflicts including Bougainville and East Timor.
But here is the clincher. Since Hiroshima the argument between non-violence and armed struggle has become somewhat academic. Sure, localised armed conflict may solve the occasional dispute, and cause a bit of bloodshed along the way. But it is not going to destroy the planet. However nuclear deterrence is the ultimate expression of humankind’s fighting tendencies. We now have the ability to blow up the entire planet, or at least make swathes of it uninhabitable.
Unless we evolve to the point where we can resolve conflict peacefully, and this means dismantling nuclear deterrence as the basis of global security, then our prospects are not good. And this is where the pacifists, including the Moriori, can teach us a thing or two.
Phil, I respect you for the issues you bring up. But respectfully disagree with the notion that some war is nessicary. Governments don’t intefere for moral obligation. All war is economically driven. I would also like to add that my great-great grandfather was Archibald Baxter who was a contientious objector in WW1 and his story is outlined as you probably know in David Grant’s book. I believe that terrorism is the direct result of America’s Imperalism and that is why I am very dissapointed at our cuurent Governments decision to re deploy the SAS.
Given that that you think some war is nessicary, if another WW broke out to fight facism or something of the like, would you vote for a conscription bill if it came before the house?
War is one thing, forcing young men to kill young men they dont know on the whim of the State is another.
Nga mihi,
Jack McDonald
P.S You can be anti-militarist without being a pacifist. A pacifist in theory does not commit violence in any form. An anti-militarist person opposes war and the military machine in all its forms.
I hate war and would never want to see one, however I believe that WW2 was necessary. Imagine what kind of world would exist if the Nazis weren’t defeated, it doesn’t bear thinking about. Evil on that scale has to be fought, if the same circumstances were to come up again, then I’d support a war.
“…the direct result of America’s Imperalism and that is why I am very dissapointed at our cuurent Governments decision to re deploy the SAS.”
Labour’s change of heart on sending troops to Afganistan indicates they understand fully how American Imperialism is a lot worse now than it was a year ago.
Phil, I’m glad you clarified your position. I thought the attacks against you in Tumeke and The Standard were unfair, and your latest post confirms my view.
History is written by the victors. England had tin mines in Kenya during WW2 which involved forced labour resulting in thousands of deaths. Strange how no one sent troops to help out Kenya.
It’s also funny how the proponents of war are always the ones the longest distance from the actual fighting.
Good on you Phil.
“It’s also funny how the proponents of war are always the ones the longest distance from the actual fighting.” – the Nazis would have taken over the entire world, and then evil would have been at everyone’s doorstep.
There are a lot of people in eastern Europe that would have preferred Hitler to Stalin. Why did England enter World War 2? – to protect Poland. At the end of the war Poland is still occupied, just replace the Germans with Russians. The Allies didn’t invade Europe to stop the death camps, they did it to stop German hegemony in Europe.
[...] Phil Twyford blogs on war, peace and pacifism. [...]
It’s not entirely clear to me whether your anti-conflict stance is specific to ‘external’ conflict, ‘internal’ conflict, or some mash-up of the two.
I tend to agree that pacifist means of resolution to external conflict (ie; between two nations/states/economies) are ideal, but you need to keep in mind that ‘peaceful’ solutions might involve trade barriers or closed borders – which don’t give the media ’sexy’ images of blood, decay and destruction – but can ultimately be even more destructive.