Why I'm a Pacifist

Supporters of the Peace Pledge Union make an undertaking saying that:

“I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to work for the removal of all causes of war.”

The following was written (mostly) by a friend of mine for our local peace group, as a statement to our MP when we present him with white poppies signed by members of his constituency. I thought I’d include it in my blog as it expresses so clearly and concisely the reasons for my own pacifism, and I’ve added the last three paragraphs to enlarge on what is implied but not stated in the rest. I really wish I had written the whole thing.

In the strictly legal, rather than the moral, sense, it can be argued that a war can be “just”. However, such a war has to tick several boxes. The cause must be just and the response proportionate. It must be fought in a lawful manner, and should result in more good than harm.

When we look at actual wars, they nearly always fail these stringent tests. They usually go wrong, do not achieve their stated aims, and result in far more civilian than military deaths. Iraq falls short on all counts and Afghanistan arguably so. Furthermore, we cannot reasonably predict in advance what the outcome of a war may be. Who would have thought that we would have still been struggling in Afghanistan after seven years?

Even if war may, in theory, be legally just (and the Iraq adventure certainly isn’t, in either its declaration or conduct), the chances of this, in practice, are so unpredictable that we must reject it as an instrument of state policy.

If not war, then what? What are non-violent alternatives to war?

We should devote our energies to removing the causes of war - the self-interest of state elites, marginalisation of whole categories of people and, in the future, competition for oil, water, living space, rather than preparing for yet more wars. The world currently spends over one trillion dollars each year on military might.

In contrast, non-violent alternatives to war are still in their infancy.

Expenditures on non-violent alternatives to war are only a few million dollars per year. Even so, much has been accomplished. There are now a number of groups developing the theory and practice of non-violent action and several others that now non-violently intervene in world conflicts. If these groups had resources comparable to those provided to the world’s militaries, they would undoubtedly have a tremendous impact on the world.

Non-violent alternatives are based on three understandings:

1 People find it difficult to kill or hurt other people, especially if they have a personal connection and understand their opponents’ perspectives.

2 People are especially unlikely to engage in unsavoury behaviour if they are watched by someone who challenges that behaviour.

3 Leaders rely on the consent, support, and effort of others to actually carry out their orders.

It is true that we live in a world with many pockets of darkness. However, in our country wrongdoers are seen as criminals to be dealt with by law rather than enemies we go to war with. The police can use force, occasionally lethal force, under strictly controlled conditions. They are certainly not allowed to shoot up the entire neighbourhood to get their man. When all else fails our response must be international law enforcement under strict and disinterested rules, not war.

Finally, there’s the question of survival – of humanity as a species. The technological capability of human beings to kill very large numbers of other human beings has increased unimaginably since 1945. Nuclear weapons are the most obviously destructive weapons ever created here on earth, and they have the capability to wipe out all human life many times over. The power of the state over its citizens in many western countries (most notably the US) is also increasing year by year, and both the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures show their willingness to use war – including weapons of mass destruction such as white phosphorus – as an instrument of foreign policy. The carnage these wars have created show that human beings cannot be trusted with the awesome power of nuclear weapons. It is hard to imagine that they will not someday be used again, and if they are the potential for escalation is huge. Even if we survive that as a species, the loss of life will be unimaginable and what’s left will be a very different world from the one we live in now.

The threat of climate change also needs desperately to be addressed. While the world’s most powerful countries spend their energy, time and monetary resources on war, the challenges brought by climate change cannot be met. If the resources devoted to war were instead directed to mitigating climate change, we might not – in the short term - be able to stop the warming trend in our planet’s climate, but we might slow it down and be able to prepare for some of the changes, and also create conditions where the future might not be as bad as otherwise. Climate change and nuclear weapons are currently the biggest threat to our survival as a species, and of course to many other species. They are our responsibility, and with our awesome capabilities we can choose a future of unparalleled destruction or one in which homo sapiens truly turns a corner in its thinking – towards life and co-operation instead of death and violent competition.

We have to do this to survive. Knowing this, how can I not be a pacifist?