| Home > Community Forum > The Practices of Just Peacemaking « Previous Entry | Next Entry » |
September 05, 2006
The Practices of Just Peacemaking
by ChristianAlliance
by Michael the Leveller
In preparing for an extended defense of gospel nonviolence, I first reminded readers of basic principles of Just War Theory, the major ethic of Western civilization on war and peace issues for the last 16 centuries. I then pointed to internal weaknesses of JWT as noticed by proponents of the tradition themselves. Those weaknesses were noticed by several church groups during the 1980s and 1990s who called for a "positive ethic of peace." We need an ethic, many voices said, that not only tells when it is permissable to go to war and under what conditions wars may be fought justly, but tells us how to make peace without appeasement, how to pursue peace justly. Pacifists agreed. So, with my mentor, Glen Stassen, taking the lead, a group of theologians, biblical scholars, international relations experts, and people with much experience in peacemaking, developed a new ethic, "just peacemaking," whose practices are catching on because they combine moral seriousness with pragmatic realism. The new tradition is spreading despite the setbacks of global terrorism and preemptive war doctrines in the 21st C.
The 10 Practices of Just Peacemaking:
1.) Support nonviolent direct action. First coming to global attention in the campaigns of Gandhi and King, this practice has spread globally in many contexts. Nonviolent direct action is a strategy that lances the festering boil of violence and injustifce and often produces healing without the resort to war. Boycotts, strikes, citizen embargoes, marches, mass civil disobedience, shunnings or (by contrast), actively fraternizing with enemy soldiers, accompaniment, are just some of the nearly 200 methods so far catalogued in the menu of interventions and defensive strategies being developed by nonviolent direct action campaigns. Support for such campaigns, studying when they work and when they fail and finding ways to make them stronger naturally reduces the numbers of wars and violent revolutions.
2.) Take independent initiatives to reduce threats. In situations of conflict, an arms buildup or any form of escalation can lead to or expand a war. But so can unilateral disarmaments or appeasements. What is needed is a series of surprising, independent initiatives that reduce threat levels and act as "confidence building measures" that often open up new possibilities of peacemaking. It is important that such actions are public, visible, happen at the times announced, and invite reciprocation.
3.) Talk with the adversary using proven methods of cooperative conflict resolution. Some politicians have refused to negotiate, claiming that speaking with party x should be a reward for good behavior. This is ridiculous. Strong leaders are not afraid to talk. One has to talk to make peace. Conflict resolution methods have developed which enable smart negotiators to be tough on the problem, rather than tough on the people involved. In every field, from business to foreign policy, principled negotiation techniques are making proven headway. Ignoring these practices for ultimatums or, by contrast, appeasements, is foolish.
4.) Acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice and seek repentance and forgiveness. Seldom is all the blame for a war or conflict only on one side. Acknowledge the wrongs your side has done and repent and seek forgiveness. This invites reciprocation and healing. It used to be believed that only individuals can repent or forgive; groups and nations could not, nor ever acknowledge any wrongdoing without appearing weak. To the contrary, such repentance has often led to healing and failure to do so has led to resentments and future wars. The experience of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Committee greatly strengthened this practice and many nations are using it as a model.
5.) Advance Democracy, Human Rights, and Religious Liberty. It should go without saying, but recent years have proven otherwise: One cannot and should not try to "advance democracy" by means of military invasion or coercion. Democratic movements must arise indigenously. Established democracies seldom go to war with other democracies and, not needing to fear uprisings from repressed peoples, can spend much less on military budgets. (The U.S. is a glaring exception here, but is thereby becoming less democratic; more a plutocratic oligarchy.) As Roger Williams, Richard Overton and others knew long ago, the lack of human rights and religious liberty is a major cause of war. Protecting and spreading these norms works for just and lasting peace.
6.) Foster Just and Sustainable Economic Development. Patterns of economic hardship and exploitation can lead to "resource wars," and poor people become desperate and are thus vulnerable to recruitment by terrorist fanatics (or power-mad government demagogues) offering cheap and easy solutions through violence. Fair trade, development that works with rather than against healthy eco-systems, these things are not only just in themselves, but win "hearts and minds" that can otherwise be seduced into violence.
7.) Work with emerging cooperative forces in the international system. Everything which works to connect nations makes wars more difficult. Actions which weaken international institutions and cooperative forces make wars more frequent and more likely.
8.) Strengthen the United Nations and International Efforts for Cooperation and Human Rights. Goes with # 7. The UN is far from perfect. It needs internal reform. But its efforts to promote global health, end poverty, spread human rights norms, and make peace have, despite all this often proven successful in its 50 year existence. Those efforts, and similar developments such as the International Criminal Court, need to be strengthened. "Lone wolf" foreign policies which undermine the UN and the international system are perceived by others as imperial and sow the seeds for future wars.
9.) Reduce offensive weapons and the weapons trade. Okay, to a pacifist like myself, all weapons are "offensive," but this refers to weapons whose nature makes them more useful for attack than defense. Work to eliminate "weapons of mass destruction," (chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons) are vital--and no nation can simultaneously work to prevent the spread of these weapons, and insist on its own right to possess them and develop more. Further, some "conventional" weapons are, by nature, more offensive, such as cluster bombs which do much more damage to civilians than combat troops and landmines which, long after wars are over, continue to kill and maim civilian populations. Efforts to ban these weapons, often supported by prominent military figures, must be supported. The same goes for the weapons trade. The more people one sells weapons to, the more likely one is fomenting war. The U.S. is the largest dealer of arms--leading to its troops often facing weapons "made in the U.S.A."
10.) Encourage Grassroots Peacemaking Groups and Voluntary Associations. Many of the above practices must become common among diplomats and policy elites, but some, such as nonviolent direct action, can be done by anyone. Also, peacemaking cannot be left to elites and experts. Grassroots groups can often take independent actions for peace before governments and they can and must pressure governments to make their own efforts for peace.
People often ask me as a pacifist, "If you are against war, what are you for?" It's a fair question and the above practices are a large part of my answer. They also help Just War folk. After all, if war is to be a "last resort," then one needs concrete ideas of what "resorts" can and must be tried first.
Michael L. Westmoreland-White, Ph.D.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at September 5, 2006 01:44 PM
Comments
As a principled pacifist and non-violence advocate, I really like this list of options. But something I have struggled with is observing the history of the non-violent democracy movement in Burma. While it is led by charismatic figures, the movement does not seem to be making much progress or stimulating international interest. What made King and Ganhdi so powerful was the international popular opinion their moements commanded. What this seems to tell me is that direct non-violent action is an option for social change within a nominal democracy with nominal freedom of press. But how do we apply non-violence to advance indiginous democratic movements in authoritarian states?
Posted by: john g at September 5, 2006 05:12 PM
I really like the 10 ideals pressed forward in this document, being a non-violent revolutionary myself. It says to politics there are choices (something I have been saying for years) and we need to play fair with other sides we disagree with (not 'lord' it over them). These 10 steps, on a political level, are a great step in the right direction for peace not war.
I think being a 'peacemaker' has to start with each individual (in their community) and then work it's way to the political level. If someone cannot control their temper, their level of animosity they stir up, and violent tendencies...they can't help on a bigger level. This is an ideal that I think is both 'liveable' and 'proper' amongst people in your community. To live contrary to 'peace' is to accept jail-time or pain, stitches, hurt, and even death. Which is why I find it absolutely funny when we look at the political/world level and say 'it can't be done'. It's hypocritical to say we have to strive for peace in our neighborhoods but not in the world.
Posted by: societyvs at September 5, 2006 05:35 PM
Seeing articles like this reminds me that maybe FDR wasn't the worst possible person to have in the White House in the 30's and early part of the 40's.
"Now Adolf, we're going to count to ten and then we want you to give back the Alsace-Lorraine. Ooooooooooooone... Twoooooooooooooo..."
Posted by: don flaker at September 6, 2006 10:27 PM
That, sadly, is a distortion of both the idea of just peacemaking and of history.
Hitler could have been stopped many times, without violence. In fact, he could have been prevented- by the prosecution of the WWI war criminals, who supported him in his rise to power (and there are indications that he was largely parroting their justifications for the first world war). There were many other areas where he could have been stopped, including in more just distribution of resources. People would not have turned to him if they weren't under stress.
I would think that just about everyone here would agree that there ARE times when war is unavoidable. Usually these occur because politicians and ambassadors have failed to do their job.
Having them do their job PROPERLY is part of Just Peacemaking.
Posted by: Bob Bowers at September 7, 2006 04:42 PM
Hi Bob
I am not sure I agree with you that there are some times when war is unavoidable, but I expect I'd not have any easy answers to any argument you might make. I appreciate your pointing out the fact that even Hitler might have been stopped without violence had we made the right political decisions prior to his gaining power. One way might have been to refrain from the punitive post WW I reparations policy; that impoverished Germany and planted the political seeds that led to the Nazis taking power.
But even if war is sometimes necesssary, we have to take into account the *full* cost of war. One of the costs is that as long as the world considers war to be a sometimes legitimate policy tool there will always be incentives for nations to arm themselves and will end up using their arms in warfare. If societies would take the risk of abandoning the warfare model this could eventually make warfare "out of style" so to speak.
your friend
Keith
Posted by: keith johnson at September 10, 2006 08:14 PM
Right, Keith! And, consider this...
With the right influences in his life, Hitler might have been a REAL leader, instead of a horrible dictator.
Now, that is something to contemplate- if Hitler, instead of becoming the monster he was, actually was a true Leader in every sense of the word... and one that people could admire and appreciate!
Posted by: Bob Bowers at September 11, 2006 04:54 AM
The whole thing about WW2 and the discussion about a just war raises many questions. One is, OK, we blew it, the world community blew it, when they could have acted to prevent ww2. When it was past the time t o prevent it, and the world did go to war, was it at that time a just war? What is so horrifying to me is how the US blocked the immigration of the Jewish people and others trying to flee the Germans...that is something I have a hard time forgiving this country for.
Posted by: Lisa at September 29, 2006 07:29 AM
Lisa, yes, the US blew it in many ways!
The US prevented the immigration of Jews, the internment camps for US citizens, the eugenics movement was largely started and based here in the US (NOT in Germany), and there are many other things that are shameful done by this country.
Did you know that Hitler sent scientists over to study the reservation system and how the US was treating my people? That is part of where the "final solution" came from!!!
We need to work to prevent things like that from ever happening again!!!
Just peacemaking requires recognizing the faults of the past and striving to prevent these abuses from happening again! It also requires that people recognize that the "other" is a human being as well and deserving respect and caring.
At least, that is one of the things I believe is part of just peacemaking.
I personally am concerned about the unresolved bitterness of minorities in this country. The general attitude we get from others is "GET OVER IT!". Yet, we face racism (and antisemitism) on a regular basis.
Justice is part and parcel of just peacemaking. The US falls VERY short in that area.
Posted by: Bob Bowers at September 29, 2006 03:57 PM
Are you Christian studying Republican history books F.D.R. policy towards Japan was to let them swing first and was a strong believer in there is no last word diplomacy. And Japan struck first, if we would have had alert army and navy officer the attack would not have been as bad. Germany declared war against America and we did not surrender. As for Hitler the question should be why such hatred towards Jews.
Posted by: Monte Schlarman at October 13, 2006 08:40 PM










