Tag Archives: nonviolence

Massive nonviolent resistance paralyzes agreesor or tiyrant.

Freedom Is Not Free: Canada and Nonviolent Resistance

“What’s our life and freedom worth
When a tyrant seeks our earth,
Aiming to subdue our land with greedy hands?
But we’ll stand against his might
Canada won’t yield this fight
And we’ll shout across our free and sovereign land:
Go home, Yankee! Yankee go home!
Keep your deals and go back home.”

Yankee, Go Home” is just one of several Canadian anti-Trump songs circulating among Canadians.  Trump’s threats against Canada –  25% across-the-board tariffs, repeated demands to make Canada the 51st state, and disrespectful references to our prime minister as “Governor Trudeau” – prompted this patriotic outpouring.

Although it is unlikely – indeed unthinkable – that Trump will invade Canada, we live in an increasingly unstable world. We can minimize the risk of external intervention to the extent we remain a united country and one with many organizations skilled in the practice of nonviolent resistance. We cannot match the United States in military power. But we can learn to paralyze military might through nonviolent resistance. In addition, familiarity with these techniques empowers citizens to preserve a vibrant democracy. Civil resistance is equally efficacious in defeating would-be tyrants. In the turbulent times to come, we should be prepared.

We Canadians are learning that freedom is not free, when you live next to a superpower that can turn on you in a moment. US proclamations of support for universal human rights, national sovereignty, and a rules-based international order can vanish with a change of regime. These ideals, though admittedly tarnished by the historical actions of the United States, have now been replaced by the predatory, amoral dictum of might makes right.

Yet we are not defenceless. Nonviolent resistance can work as a spontaneous response, though it is more effective with prior training and with a culture of civilian-based unarmed resistance. This culture does not exist in Canada (as it does in India, for example). We have been distracted from the efficacy of this strategy by the dominant narrative that national security depends on military strength alone. The emergency we now face, in middle-power Canada, reminds us how important it is that this notion of security be reframed.

Why is Canada a target?

Canadians from coast to coast to coast have reacted with anger and defiance to Trump’s bullying behaviour. All of Trump’s charges against Canada are baseless:

  • Trade deficit? Trump has claimed a trade deficit with Canada of US$200 -$250 billion, but according to US statistics, the deficit was US$55 billion in 2024. If you factor in trade in services, the deficit falls to US$45 billion. If you exclude energy exports from Canada, which are sold at a discount from international prices, the US has a healthy trade surplus with Canada.
  • A conduit for drugs and undocumented migrants to the US? Trump wants to penalize Canada with exorbitant tariffs for permitting an “invasion” from the North, but US government studies show that infinitesimal proportions of total migrants and fentanyl reach the US across the northern border.
  • US banks cannot operate in Canada? Many US banks operate in Canada, constituting about half of all foreign banking assets.

Why the lies and threats? The key is politics, not economics. Trump mobilizes his followers with the rhetoric of making America great again. The narrative is that the US has been victimized by both external and internal enemies. The role of the leader is to defeat these enemies and affirm his, and his country’s, greatness. Canada is now one of these purported external enemies, along with Mexico, China, and even NATO. Thus, Canada must be prevented from (purportedly) victimizing the American people. Moreover, another way to make American great again is to absorb or at least dominate other countries. Canada is a tempting target for domination with its bounty of natural resources, fresh water, and “nice” (pliable?) people.

Canada is not the only foreign territory under threat from Trump. The list now includes Greenland, the Panama-canal zone, and Gaza. Countries with small and medium populations must look to their own defence, as international norms decay.

A major weapon of the weak but resolute is nonviolent resistance.

What is Nonviolent Resistance?

Nonviolent resistance is not only a more effective defence than military force, but also less devastating in terms of lives lost and property destroyed. Indeed, the songs I’ve mentioned are actually one dimension of nonviolent resistance. They warn a potential aggressor that there will be no easy victory, while fostering a unity of purpose in the targeted national population.

To respond to an actual or threatened invasion with military force would be foolhardy. Canada would experience widespread casualties and the destruction of our largest cities. An armed insurrection would be more effective, in light of Canada’s vast territory and numerous mountains and forested areas. But the recourse to deadly force would lead not only to widespread casualties, but also to making enemies of US soldiers who, in the main, would initially sympathize with their friendly neighbours. The goal is to win over the occupying force, not drive it, through fear, to retaliation and hatred.

The answer to the conundrum of how to defeat aggression with the least damage is nonviolent resistance. This strategic concept emerged in the 1980s and 1990s at the height of the Cold War. An early proponent was the American Gene Sharp, supported by the Albert Einstein Institution. Sharp is often referred to as the “Clausewitz of non-violent warfare.” Recent major contributors on civilian resistance –Srdja Popovic, Erica Chenoworth  and Michael Beer – follow in Sharp’s footsteps.

Nonviolent resistance involves using a country’s population and its institutions to deter an invasion, and if that fails, to defeat and drive out the invaders. A determined people deter an aggressor by signally that the targeted country is united in opposition to a take-over. The government and people need to appear fully committed to defending themselves. They will do so by making their society “unrulable” by the would-be aggressor.

The invader cannot consolidate its political control if the subject people and the institutions refuse to comply with its rule. The tactics involve, in the first instance, total noncooperation with the occupying force, together with open defiance. That means that governments at all levels in the invaded nation would continue to supply only the basic services that a modern society requires for its survival: clean water, electricity, sanitation, policing, fire control, etc. Governments would resign, and civil servants would find ways to subvert every order issued by the invader. Crowds would fill the squares in silent or derisory defiance of orders. No violent response must be the norm: it should be apparent to all – the occupiers, the dictator’s audience back home, less committed Canadians, and foreign observers – who are the purveyors of violence against nonviolent people, and who simply want to live peacefully in their own homeland.

Throughout the occupation, citizens and organizations focus on subverting the loyalty and morale of the occupying troops and functionaries and rallying international support against the invader. In Canada’s case, the long history of friendship with Americans will mean that the morale of the occupiers is low. The aim is to encourage defections and desertions by talking face-to-face with soldiers and functionaries. If these tactics are effective, the support base of the external dictator begins to erode, both within the armed forces and among the Americans at home. This erosion of support may lead to the overthrow of the leader, or at least to his willingness to concoct some compromise to cover a retreat.

Attracting international support to Canada’s cause should not be a challenge. Trump alienated most of humankind and foreign governments during his first month in office.

Nonviolent resistance is just refined common sense. For a middle power like Canada, national security depends as much on our unity, our determination, and our understanding of the basic principles of nonviolent defence as on military power.

Canada is an ideal candidate for this strategy vis-à-vis the United States. We cannot match the US in firepower or economic strength.  However, Canada shares with America a language, a history of common struggles, a myriad of cross-border personal relationships, and basic democratic values (at least with the majority). These factors give Canada considerable leverage. Although it is unlikely that Trump will invade Canada, a united country capable of nonviolent resistance decreases the risk. In any event, these tactics have a relevance beyond deterring invasion: they empower the people to preserve a strong democracy.

Cases of Nonviolent Resistance

Civilian defence is not merely a theory. Not only is there a long history of improvised civilian resistance to invasions, but also countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, Finland and Lithuania have institutionalized civilian defence at various times.

Sharp identifies 16 examples in his 1990 book on civilian-based defense. These cases involve anti-colonial struggles (4), revolts against Communist rule (4), struggle against domination by a powerful neighbour (2) – including the brave Danish resistance to occupation during World War II, and resistance to internal oppression/human-rights violations (6). The degree of effective struggle varies widely; some failed while others succeeded (for example, the Gandhian movement in India).

Srdja Popovic’s Blueprint for Revolution offers more recent examples of nonviolent resistance, mostly to defeat internal usurpers. He also updates Sharp’s strategy and tactics, especially for youth in the digital age. He includes an entertaining section on “laughtivism.” Popovic and his colleagues now coach resistance movements worldwide on the strategy and tactics of nonviolence. How much more effective might Sharp’s exemplary resistance movements have been if they had the benefit of this accumulated wisdom? Instead, the resisters had to invent nonviolence in the moment.

Another exemplary case is Ukraine. Ukrainians, when Russia invaded their country in February 2022, undertook many spontaneous and inspirational acts of nonviolent resistance. Civilians blocked tanks and convoys, berated or cajoled Russian soldiers to undermine their resolve, gave wrong directions to Russian convoys, refused to cooperate, and mounted spontaneous protests in occupied towns. But then the bloody carnage on both sides overwhelmed civilian defense.

Consider how more effective Ukraine’s nonviolent defense would have been if it had been planned and Ukrainians trained in non-violent methods. With a civilian defense system in place, the Ukrainian armed forces might have allowed the Russian tanks to enter the country unimpeded. No immediate deaths, no destruction. But what can you, the invader, do with tanks when you face a population united in defiance, unarmed protest and complete non-cooperation? Ukraine might have made itself ungovernable by an occupier.

In addition to the more spontaneous incidents, certain countries have institutionalized civilian defence for varying lengths of time. Consider Sweden: “Total defence” (military plus civilian defence) originated in neutral Sweden in the dangerous 1930s and World War II. Created in 1944, a Swedish Civil Defence Board undertook research on civil defence, organized training and oversaw the construction of air raid shelters. Sweden ran civilian-defence training centres in six cities during the Cold War. In 1986 the agency merged with the fire services board in a new Rescue Services Agency. The end of the Cold War led to a withering of the civil defence component. The initial idea – that all citizens had a duty to protect their country in an organized manner – fell into disuse by the mid 1990s.

The Russian attack on Georgia and seizure of Crimea, however, revived the concept of total defence after 2014. Everyone between the age of 16 and 70 again had an obligation to respond in the event of an invasion or a natural catastrophe. “Everyone is obliged to contribute and everyone is needed” proclaimed a government pamphlet in 2018. Swedes were cautioned in the same pamphlet to prepare themselves for an emergency, though the emphasis was as much on peace-time natural emergencies as war. Nevertheless, in the event of war, the pamphlet declared that “we will never give up”. This basic idea is central to nonviolent resistance: an invader may occupy territory, but total non-cooperation and symbolic opposition will raise the costs of occupation, thereby discouraging invasion in the first place. In principle, all municipalities, voluntary organizations, businesses, trade unions, and religious organizations are required to prepare for civilian defence.

By March 2022, at the height of the war in Ukraine,  one in three Swedes was fairly or very concerned their country would be attacked. Furthermore, a 2021 survey registered popular support for the idea of civil defence: 84 percent of Swedes said they would be willing to play a defence role, so long as it was non-combative.

Sweden is not relying  on civilian defence, of course. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the government raised the defence budget and joined NATO. But the idea of civil defence persists as a defiant complement, to military defence.

Obstacles

Nonviolent resistance is more effective if it is nationally organized and if training is available throughout society. But partisan divides and apathy make such country-wide organization and training improbable in Canada.

Sharp, in Civilian-Based Defense contends that nonviolent defence, to succeed, must adhere to an “all-of-society,” nonpartisan approach. People of both sexes and all ages must participate, according to Sharp. They will do so out of patriotism, the desire to maintain their way of life, and an abhorrence of domestic and foreign usurpers alike. Nonviolent defence is more likely to work where social cohesion is high and democracy and civil society are strong.

However, is this “all-of-society” scenario realistic in today’s world? Most countries, including Canada’s, are riven with partisan divides. Consequently, organization and training for nonviolent resistance, whether organized by the government or voluntary associations, would be viewed with suspicion by right-wing/populist forces as a leftist plot. Conspiracy theories might abound.

Another problem is that alienation and cynicism are rife in Western societies today. What will induce people to devote their free time to training in nonviolence? Motivation is a problem, magnified by partisan divides.

These considerations suggest that a top-down, apolitical organization and training in civilian defense will not work. Nonetheless, training and organization should be the goal of as many organizations as possible within civil society: churches, synagogues, temples, civil rights organizations, unions, indigenous rights organizations, peace organizations, climate groups, for example.  Michael Beer’s manual on more than 300 tactics of nonviolent resistance, which is available free online, is an accessible guide. Widespread training and organization are the road not only for deterring aggression, but also remaining free of tyrants.

Conclusion

Countries bordering on a Great Power, such as Canada, can benefit from nonviolent defense. These countries could not hope to defeat an invading force from the superpower – or at least not without inflicting enormous damage and casualties upon themselves. Besides training as many as possible in the methods of nonviolent defence, civil society organizations would build strong links with peace groups internationally and with sympathetic groups within the superpower. The aim would be to precipitate internal dissent in the aggressor’s country and international condemnation of the invader, possibly including sanctions, in the event of a conflict. This strategy would proceed along with a willingness to negotiate to resolve conflicts with the great-power neighbour.

Nonviolent resistance is one element in a broader program to allow humans to live and thrive in an increasingly dangerous world. Freedom is not free.
Richard Sandbrook is Vice-President of Science for Peace and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at University of Toronto

Science for Peace and Sustainability? Not without a Strategy

Humanity faces the gravest crisis in our short history. Our governmental leaders are unwilling or unable to grapple effectively with two looming catastrophes: escalating climatic disasters and growing arsenals of increasingly deadlier nuclear arsenals, combined with rising tensions among nuclear powers. Authoritarian tendencies throughout the world make matters worse, as far-right deniers and conspiracy theorists rise to the fore. Continue reading

The barrel of a revolver tied in a knot to symbolize nonviolence

10 Essential Things to Know about Nonviolent Resistance

1.      Two traditions of thinking about nonviolence hold sway.

  • Principled nonviolence: Adherents decide to use nonviolent means on ethical grounds. In the Gandhian approach, nonviolence is a way of living a moral life.
  • Pragmatic nonviolence: Activists, seeking to win rights, freedom, or justice, choose to use nonviolent techniques because they are more effective than violent means in achieving these goals.

However, in practice, principled proponents, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, proved to be adept at pragmatically using nonviolent methods, Equally, some pragmatists hope for a world in which principled nonviolence can exist.

2.       Nonviolent resistance (NVR), from the pragmatic viewpoint, is a form of political struggle.

Unarmed civilians employ coordinated and unconventional methods to deter or defend against usurpers and foreign aggressors or to overturn injustices, though without causing or threatening bodily harm to their opponents. Examples of nonviolent methods include demonstrations, protests, strikes, stay-at-homes, boycotts, street theatre, derision of authorities, rebellious graffiti and other communications, shunning of collaborators, building alternative institutions, and many more.

3.       NVR is not a doctrine of passive resistance or acceptance of weakness.

It is not passive, but active, demanding coordinated and unconventional struggle. Far from manifesting weakness, NVR demands immense courage of resisters, who are aware their resistance may lead to injury, imprisonment, torture, or even death. NVR is thus not for the weak-hearted. It is a strategy only for those with the determination to persist in the face of repression.

4.    The aim of NVR is to build support and undermine the pillars of the opponent’s power.

NVR movements succeed by building up a large and diverse following of activists, winning over passive supporters, and precipitating demoralization and defections among the pillars of the established order (eg, the police, army, bureaucrats, insiders).

 5.    NVR is effective in comparison to violent campaigns.

Erica Chenoworth, who has undertaken path-breaking research, discovers that, of the 627 revolutionary campaigns waged worldwide between 1900 and 2019, more than half of the nonviolent campaigns succeeded in achieving their goals, whereas only about a quarter of the violent ones succeeded. Nonviolent struggles are twice as effective as violent struggles. Yet the influence of the military-industrial complex, the widespread glorification of violence in popular culture and the equating of masculinity with domination obscure the superiority of nonviolence as a political stratagem.

6.    The leverage of NVR stems from the dependence of rulers on the consent of significant sectors of the population (Gene Sharp’s insight).

Rulers cannot rule if bureaucrats obstruct, armed forces and police hold back, people shirk work and ignore laws and regulations, and foreign powers desert. Rulers do not need the support of entire populations; the Nazis could destroy Jews, Roma, the mentally and physically disabled, socialists and union leaders, so long as most ethnic Germans acquiesced to their rule. Hence, the task of nonviolent resisters is fourfold:

  • ·         to build a large and diverse movement
  • ·         to attract the loyalty of passive supporters
  • ·         to encourage the defection of pillars of the regime
  • ·         to attract support in the international community.

  7.    The effectiveness of NVR depends on many factors.

  • Organization: to attract the support of a large and diverse group of supporters.
  • Prior coalition building ensures a core of committed activists as unity is critical, the coalition needs both clear, unifying goals, and processes to resolve internal disputes
  • Leadership is needed, but it must be decentralized, to make it difficult for rulers to decapitate resistance by arresting its top leaders.
  • Training in nonviolent methods: an effective movement must be able to shift tactics as circumstances change. Noncooperation with the regime is one of the most effective sets of methods in the playbook, but these methods require coordinated action.
  • Strategic and tactical agility: protests and demonstrations are only the public face of nonviolent action; effective movements employ the full panoply of strategies, depending on the degree of repression by the rulers. The resisters win when they attract the support of passive supporters and precipitate mass defections among the pillars of the established order.
  • Nonviolent discipline. Rulers respond to NVR by neutralizing the leaders of the opposition, undermining the movement’s unity, and fomenting violent action on the part of protesters. If the last tactic works, the government can then justify violent repression. It can portray the civil resisters as a terrorist threat. The resisters can succeed only if it is clear to everyone who is the major threat, namely a ruthless and violent governing elite. Thus, destruction of property (such as the destruction of bridges as enemy forces advance) is permissible, so long as it entails no loss of life or injury. Collaborators of the regime can be shunned, but not assassinated. Such nonviolent discipline is difficult to maintain. It runs counter to one’s inclination to respond to violence with violence. The need for discipline underlines the importance of training.

8.      NVR can be employed to deter and defeat foreign aggressors, as well as to prevent or overthrow dictatorships and demand rights and justice.

Civilian-based defense, in the words of Gene Sharp in his book of that name (1990) is “a policy [whereby] the whole population and the society’s institutions become the fighting forces. Their weaponry consists of a vast variety of forms of psychological, economic, social, and political resistance and counter-attack. This policy aims to deter attacks and to defend against them by preparations to make the society unrulable by would-be tyrants and aggressors. The trained population and the society’s institutions would be prepared to deny attackers their objectives and to make consolidation of political control impossible. These aims would be achieved by applying massive and selective noncooperation and defiance. In addition, where possible, the defending country would aim to create maximum international problems for the attackers and to subvert the reliability of their troops and functionaries.” History holds many examples of civilian defense, including in Denmark and Norway during Nazi occupation and in Czechoslovakia following the 1968 “Prague Spring,” when a Warsaw Pact army sought to reimpose rigid Soviet-style Communism.

9.      NVR became less effective in the period since 2010.

Although nonviolent campaigns worldwide reached unprecedented numbers prior to the 2020 pandemic, their success rate fell. Erica Chenoworth in her 2021 book Civil Resistance provides the statistics. (However, nonviolent resistance remained more effective than violent campaigns.) Chenoworth also offers some tentative reasons for this comparative decline. She highlights “smart repression” by governments and strategic errors on the part of resistance movements. Each is a major subject, and each demands attention if NVR is not to repeat the errors of the past. Restrictions accompanying the pandemic (2020-2022) dampened NVR by rendering mass gatherings illegal and/or dangerous.

10.  “Smart repression” needs to be better understood and counteracted.

Nonviolent movements’ strength depends on maintaining unity among a diverse following, sustaining nonviolent discipline, and demonstrating versatility in nonviolent methods. Determined rulers will undermine the movement’s unity, provoke violent responses, and neutralize the leadership. Digital means of communication have assisted NVR movements in mobilizing large numbers of protesters and in spreading their messages via social media. But there is a dark side to digital technology. It allows governments to enhance surveillance of dissidents, identify leaders, and sow discord through misinformation campaigns. The effectiveness of the next phase of NVR depends both on neutralizing smart resistance and returning to the fundamentals of nonviolence: organization, training, nonviolent discipline, and the versatile use of the full panoply of nonviolent techniques

 

total noncooperation with an occupying invader is like a walll the invader cannot penetrate

The Viability of Nonviolent Defence Today

“Non-violent defense” is an oxymoron. Or so it appears to many people. You hear the word “defense”, you think of “military”. You hear the term “national security”, you think of a state’s military strength (and perhaps diplomacy). The military has hi-jacked the terms defense and national security. Consequently, it sounds absurd to talk about non-violent defense.

But is the idea so preposterous?

Consider the war in Ukraine. Civilian resistance to the Russian invaders is inspirational. Civilians have blocked tanks and convoys, berated or cajoled Russian soldiers to undermine their resolve, given wrong directions to Russian convoys, refused to cooperate, and mounted spontaneous protests in occupied areas. And all these tactics were improvised on the spot.

Think how more effective non-violent defense would have been if it had been planned, and if Ukrainians had been trained in non-violent methods. With a civilian defense system in place, the Ukrainian armed forces might have allowed the Russian tanks to enter the country unimpeded. No immediate deaths, no destruction. And what can you, the invader, do with tanks when you face a population united in defiance, unarmed protest and complete non-cooperation? Ukraine would be indigestible.

Whether non-violent defense would have worked cannot be known. But what is certain is this: the prevailing notion of national security is leading us to death and destruction, in Ukraine and elsewhere. Thus, a potential alternative — civilian-based defence — deserves critical scrutiny. My earlier reflection on this system reviewed its strategy and tactics, some limiting conditions and provisos, and its potential benefits. Now I turn to lacuna and obstacles in the theory and practice of non-violent defense. Only hard-headed questioning will mitigate the skepticism surrounding this approach.

This critical review emphasizes the work of Gene Sharp – sometimes referred to as the “Clausewitz of non-violent warfare”. Recent major contributors on the methods of civilian resistance – in particular, Srdja Popovic and Erica Chenoworth – follow in Sharp’s footsteps. They provide either updated non-violent methods for a digital age (and for young rebels) or empirical evidence of the effectiveness of such an approach.

Two issues strike me as pivotal in getting real about non-violent defense. The first is recognizing and overcoming major domestic obstacles, especially vested interests, partisan divides, and apathy. The second involves seeing beyond the static typologies of non-violent action to conceptualize its implementation as a dynamic, mutually reinforcing process. Taking civilian defense seriously confronts its proponents with several dilemmas.

Not Just an Abstraction

Non-violent defense is not simply a theory. Not only is there a long history of improvised civilian resistance to invasions, but also countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, Finland and Lithuania have institutionalized civilian defense at various times.

Consider Sweden:  “Total defense” (military plus civilian defense) originated in neutral Sweden in the dangerous 1930s and World War II. Created in 1944, a Swedish Civil Defence Board undertook research on civil defense, organized training and oversaw the construction of air raid shelters. Sweden ran civilian-defence training centres in six cities during the Cold War. In 1986 the agency merged with the fire services board in a new Rescue Services Agency. The end of the Cold War led to a withering of the civil defence component. The initial idea – that all citizens had a duty to protect their country in an organized manner – fell into disuse by the mid 1990s.

The Russian attack on Georgia and seizure of Crimea however, revived the concept of total defence after 2014. Everyone between the age of 16 and 70 again has an obligation to respond in the event of an invasion or a natural catastrophe. “Everyone is obliged to contribute and everyone is needed” proclaimed a government pamphlet in 2018. Swedes were cautioned in the same pamphlet to prepare themselves for an emergency, though the emphasis was as much on peace-time natural emergencies as war. Nevertheless, in the event of war, the pamphlet declared that “we will never give up”. This basic idea is central to non-violent defence: an invader may occupy territory, but total non-cooperation and symbolic opposition will raise the costs of occupation, thereby discouraging invasion in the first place. In principle, all municipalities, voluntary organizations, businesses, trade unions, and religious organizations are required to prepare for civilian defence.

By March 2022, at the height of the war in Ukraine,  one in three Swedes was fairly or very concerned their country would be attacked.. Furthermore, a 2021 survey registered popular support for the idea of civil defense: 84 percent of Swedes said they would be willing to play a defense role, so long as it was non-combative.

Sweden is not an ideal case of civilian defense. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the government talked of raising the defense budget and perhaps abandoning Sweden’s neutrality by joining NATO. But the idea of civil defense persists as a defiant complement, though not alternative, to military defense.

Partisanship, Vested Interests and Apathy

If a country were to experiment with non-violent defense, what obstacles would the experiment encounter?

Sharp in Chapter 5 of Civilian-Based Defense contends that non-violent defense, to succeed, must not only adhere to an all-of-society, nonpartisan approach, but also secure the cooperation of the armed forces. People of both sexes and all ages must participate, according to Sharp. They will do so out of patriotism, the desire to maintain their way of life, and an abhorrence of domestic and foreign usurpers alike. It will also be necessary to bring the military onside, claims Sharp. Civilian-based defense (CBD) may thus begin as a minor supplement to the armed forces, the former’s role expanding as it demonstrates its efficacy and popularity.

Is this a realistic scenario in today’s world? The establishment of CBD, from this viewpoint, is largely a top-down exercise, based on two assumptions. The first is that partisan cleavages are bridgeable. According to Sharp, civilian defense must be “trans-partisan”. It must accommodate conservatives as well as liberals and socialists. If it becomes the project of a radical movement, or any single party, Sharp contends, its appeal will be too limited.

Secondly, this scenario assumes that reason will trump interests. The armed forces, various security apparatuses, suppliers of weapons and military technology and the national-security intellectual wing, are apparently swayed by evidence. Sharp emphasizes the importance of research in demonstrating CBD’s potential effectiveness. If research on CBD is positive, if the training of the population proceeds, and if civilians show enthusiasm, the armed wing of defense will acquiesce to the ascendancy of non-violent defense. Reason and patriotism will prevail.

Note that Sharp advocates “transarmament,” not disarmament. Presumably, it will be easier to sell CBD if it is seen not as pacifism, but as another form of struggle. The weapons in the new defence system are not munitions, missiles, warplanes, tanks; instead, they involve the subtle employment of 198 non-violent methods, their selection geared to the stage of engagement with the opponent, and the degree of the latter’s repressiveness.

I see three problems with this approach. The first pertains to interests. Sadly, we do not live in a world governed by reason; indeed, today people contest even what counts as fact. Interests shape dominant ideas, including those, or especially those, concerning national security. President Dwight Eisenhower, long ago, warned of the power of the military-industrial complex in bolstering military expenditures. Today, we would need to refer to an expanded military-industrial-security-intellectual complex. Thousands of billions of dollars are spent worldwide on the military and ancillary activities: on weapons, personnel, training, think-tanks, research and development. Many corporations, wealthy shareholders, employees and intellectuals are invested in perpetuating and extending the system of military defense. And defense budgets grow year after year.

In contrast, how much is spent on research on non-military forms of defense? Virtually nothing – perhaps the occasional grant for esoteric scholarly research.

Demilitarization will therefore involve a political struggle. It will be a struggle obviously in the superpowers. But even in in developing countries with weak institutions, the military tends to be comparatively strong. Much is at stake in defense policy for a range of powerful interests. No research results in favor of civilian defense are likely to persuade those whose profits, privileges or job depend on military defense. Non-violent defense – as more than a minor supplement to military defense – is a radical proposal.

Secondly, many societies today are riven with partisan divides and authoritarian tendencies. The United States is an obvious example, but the phenomenon is widespread, in Europe and beyond.

Is it possible to forge trans-partisan support for CBD in these circumstances?

Sharp notes in Civilian-Based Defence (ch. 5) that non-violent defence is more likely to work where social cohesion is high and democracy and civil society are strong. However, these ideal conditions are not, he claims, prerequisites.

But is Sharp correct? Can non-violent defence happen in the absence of social cohesion and strong democracy? It seems unlikely. The issue would be politicized and viewed with deep suspicion by conservative/populist forces. And autocrats would not empower their people via training in nonviolence.

Thirdly, alienation and cynicism are rife in many societies today; Yet Sharp emphasizes that non-violent defense requires intensive preparation and training of all or most of a country’s population. What will induce people to shake off their apathy and devote their free time to training? Motivation is a problem, magnified by deep partisan divides.

All these considerations – vested interests, partisan divides and alienation – suggest that a top-down, apolitical approach will not work. The reality is that non–violent defense is a radical democratic initiative. Nonviolent action is inherently democratic to the extent that it empowers people vis-a-vis their rulers or aggressors. Only a mass movement will be powerful enough to overcome the vested interests in militarism and motivate people to participate in training and preparation.

Of course, even if CBD fails as a national system, or is limited to a subsidiary role, people may, when the need arises, spontaneously take up nonviolent resistance. But a trained response would be so much more effective.

A Dynamic, Mutually Reinforcing Process

The prospect of non-violent defense is enhanced if it is understood as a dynamic process, rather than a static design. Don’t get lost in Sharp’s 198 methods of non-violent action and the complexities of relating strategy to circumstances. The key is this: CBD focuses on agency. People possess power to shape their own futures; how therefore  should this agency be harnessed for the common good? People have power because rulers depend on the ruled. Rulers cannot rule if the latter withhold their consent (or perhaps more accurately, assent). Thus, Sharp and his followers explore the bases of consent, and how consent can be denied to internal usurpers or external aggressors through nonviolent means.

Sharp and the others adhere to an inductive approach. They draw principles of effective action from successful and unsuccessful cases. In their examples, groups and individuals improvised responses to attempted domination — for example, the passive resistance of the German population to the French-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr Basin in 1923, the heroic non-violent resistance to German occupation in Denmark and Norway during World War II, and the astounding non-cooperation and defiance of the Czechs and Slovaks that met the Warsaw Pact army’s invasion to end the Prague Spring in 1968. The point of these cases is obvious: if improvised strategies can work so effectively, imagine if they were organized!

Fine. But how do you begin the process? Enthusiasm for nonviolent defense may be limited at first, and powerful groups will not cooperate and may be actively obstructive.

The process seems to work like this. The more the government builds the capabilities of the civilian defenders, the greater the willingness of people to unite and resist, drawing on the learned repertoire of nonviolent strategy and tactics.  And the more advanced the capabilities and the united willingness of defenders to resist, the less likely that enemies will attack or usurpers will usurp power. The costs of domination become too high.

What comprise the capabilities of non-violent defense? They include organizational structure, committed and shrewd leadership, training facilities geared to the general population, the proportion of the population that wants to participate, and ultimately the strength of civil society.

The final factor alludes to the importance of institutional involvement in civilian-based defense. What political parties, trade unions, religious bodies, school systems, municipalities support the system? Obviously, nonviolent action is much easier to develop within a democracy; indeed, it is inherently democratic. Again, CBD empowers people.

As the capabilities grow, the willingness to resist and the participation of the population expands. Concomitantly, the costs of asserting domination on the part of usurpers or aggressors rises, enhancing the prospects of peace – provided the society in question is willing to pre-empt conflict by negotiating jointly acceptable solutions to outstanding disputes.

Being Realistic

Demilitarization – reducing the budgets and roles of the armed forces – is a critical goal in today’s world. We face the rising probability of a nuclear holocaust resulting from accident, miscalculation, or escalation arising from a war like that in Ukraine. We are also very close to runaway global warming. The military, in the United States and increasingly elsewhere, is one of the largest institutional emitters of greenhouse gases. In addition, massive defense budgets are dedicated to waste – contributing neither to production not higher living standards – whereas we need to reallocate these resources to fighting climate change. Nonviolent defense, together with a renewed commitment to nuclear disarmament, is a potential way of achieving demilitarization.

Besides bolstering demilitarization, civilian defense has other positive outcomes. It reinforces civil society, builds democracy, discourages would-be tyrants and enemies, and extends norms of non-violent conflict resolution.

How then can we promote CBD? Civilian defense may proceed as a gradual process. Initially, it may be seen as only a supplement to military defense. Realism suggests that this approach is the most viable option. If popular enthusiasm grows and civilian capabilities advance, the military may be gradually reduced to a border control agency. But such a harmonious process is likely to be blocked at an early stage. Apolitical gradualism has severe limits.

Authoritarian states, for one thing, would balk at empowering their subjects. Civilian defense reveals the acute dependence of government on the assent of the ruled, together with the non-violent acts of omission and commission that withdraw that assent and paralyze rulership.

Nonetheless, in authoritarian systems, citizens have often improvised effective non-violent tactics. Consider the revolts of the people in eastern Europe and republics of the former Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s; the “Arab Spring” of the early 2010s, which featured in many cases massive street protests; the “color revolutions” beginning in 2004 in the post-Soviet countries of Eurasia, including Ukraine; and the non-violent revolts against military rule in Sudan, Myanmar and elsewhere. Indeed, nonviolent protest reached its apogee in the period 2010-19, inhibited eventually by the pandemic.

Nonviolence, at a minimal level, is just common sense for people with grievances but without deadly weapons.

Partisan divides and power structures also hinder the expansion of nonviolent resistance at the expense of the military. “The people united will never be defeated,” yes. But the people are rarely united, and vested interests are powerful. Partisan and other cleavages allow those who govern to divide and rule their subjects. Social cohesion, together with democracy, is a key ingredient of success with non-violence. Unfortunately, many societies today are riven by partisan loyalties and authoritarian tendencies. What to do?

Accept the reality: civilian defence, in its full manifestation where the military’s role considerably shrinks, is a radical proposal. It will probably be advocated only by a progressive movement, along with measures to9 achieve democratization,  equity, and a Green New Deal for a just transition. Civilian defence, as a radical project of democratization and demilitarization, is the missing link in the programs of the left.

What sort of states are the best candidates for CBD? Nuclear-armed states are unlikely candidates. From the strategic viewpoint, it is assumed nuclear weapons deter attacks. We know the logic is strong. How else could a nuclear power such as Russia, without the deterrent, get away with attacking and devastating Ukraine, the second largest country in Europe? States will be reluctant to surrender their nuclear weapons.

Non-violent defence can still play a supplementary role in the US, the UK, France, India and Israel, acting as a major deterrent to domestic usurpers of power and building civil society for the longer run. In addition, the more states adopting CBD, the lower the international threats; the lower the tensions, the more likely are agreements on limiting and eventually abolishing nuclear weapons. There is an indirect benefit of civilian defence.

Clearly, CBD would be easiest to introduce in small democratic countries and territories that lack a military. Cases that come to mind include Costa Rica, Mauritius and Iceland.

Countries bordering on a Great Power could also benefit from civilian defence. These countries could not hope to defeat an invading force from the superpower – or at least not without inflicting enormous damage and casualties upon themselves. Besides training the population in the principles and methods of nonviolent defence, civil society organizations would need to build strong links with peace groups internationally and with dissident groups within the superpower. The aim would be to precipitate internal dissent in the aggressor’s country and international condemnation of the invader, together with sanctions, in the event of a conflict. This strategy would proceed along with a willingness to negotiate to resolve conflicts with the great-power neighbour. Ukraine would have been a major candidate for such an approach. Smaller countries would be in a more dangerous position with CBD. They would face the prospect of forced assimilation to the dominant ethnic group of the superpower, as has happened in Tibet and the western regions of China.

Democratic middle powers, especially the Nordic countries, also offer an opportunity. Sweden is an exemplar. They would begin with civilian defence as a supplement to military defence. As CBD is a dynamic process, it might expand over a decade as it demonstrates its viability. Given catastrophic climate change, civilian and military defence would both expand to encompass preparation and training in handling “natural” disasters (extreme heat and storms, floods and forest fires). The body in charge might be termed a “civilian protection agency.”

Nonviolent defense is one element in a broader program to allow humans to live and thrive in an increasingly dangerous world. Politics is key.


Richard Sandbrook is professor emeritus of Political Science at the University of Toronto and President of Science for Peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a large crowd engaged in nonviolent resistance

Demilitarization: Is It Time for Civilian-Based Defence?

“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

Albert Einstein’s famous comment is more profoundly true today than when he uttered it in 1946. As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explained in 2015, Einstein’s understanding of this old mode of thinking still defined the prevailing national security doctrine of all major states. It’s time for a change in thinking. Continue reading

Choosing Activism

“Philosophers have only interpreted the world [but] the point is to change it.” Those of us in the peace, justice and environmental movements embrace this Marxian aphorism. If we want to live by the dictum, what does that entail? Continue reading