Nonviolent Struggle and 
Social Defence
3-7 April 1990, Bradford, England
Conference report (2 of 2)

 
More than a hundred people attended War Resisters International's
"International Study Conference on Nonviolent Struggle and Social Defense". 
It was held at England's University of Bradford School of Peace Studies which
is about a four-hour drive to the north of London.  About thirty countries
were represented including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada,
China, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Federal
Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic, Hong Kong, India, Ireland,
Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Palestine, Philippines, Poland, South
Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United States of America and Yugoslavia.
Simultaneous translation for six languages and the multi-lingual ability of
most participants made it possible for this incredible group to share their
experiences, frustrations and hopes.  Public figures included Gene Sharp of
the Albert Einstein Institution, Julio Quan of the United Nations University
for Peace, Narayan Desai of the Institute for Total Revolution, Petra Kelly of
the German Greens, Brian Martin of the University of Wollongong, Nafez Assaily
of the Palestine Center for the Study of Nonviolence, Devi Prasad of Peace
Brigades International and others too numerous to mention, not less important
but probably not as well known internationally.
 
The agenda was vast and was flexible enough to change to meet the needs of the
participants as the conference progressed.  The format was to first get a lot
of information in from experienced and informed participants, then to provide
a lot of space for the analysis of problems and synthesis of strategies.  The
information input was interesting and diverse.  It included background as well
as updates about the Eastern Block countries, the European situation in
general, the Chinese struggle, the Palestinian Intifada, the Central and South
American Struggle, the South African Struggle, Alternative Defense for
Ireland, the Pacific Region including specifically Fiji/Philippines/Australia
and various general topics such as "How to communicate about CBD?", "Women and
Social Defense" and so on.  There was also a lot of books, leaflets, magazines
and newsletters available for perusal and purchase. Although it was limited,
there was time for personal discussions at meal times, during tea breaks and
in the evenings.
 
Perhaps the most exciting was the input from the countries where largely
"nonviolent revolutions" have occurred, are occurring or have apparent
potential to occur.  Unfortunately, many of the sessions overlapped, so it was
not possible to hear directly about all the major nonviolent struggles that
have manifested in recent years and, in some cases recent months.  Since there
isn't room here to try to describe each situation, I will describe what I
believe were the major outcomes of the gathering.  If you are in the Pacific
Region and are especially interested in any aspect of the conference, Brian
Martin at the University of Wollongong probably has copies of position papers
and lists of participants. I'm sure he would respond to any reasonable request
by mail or telephone.  He can be contacted at Schweik Action Wollongong, P.O.
Box 492, Wollongong East, NSW, 2520 or phone (042) 287860. Otherwise contact
War Resisters International, 55 Dawes Street, London SE17 1EL or phone them in
the U.K. on (01) 703 7198.
 
Perhaps the most vigorous and lengthy discussion was on the question, "What is
Social Defense?"  There seemed to be a narrow view and a broad view.
 
The narrow view was that Social Defense, or to use Gene Sharp's term -
Civilian-Based Defense(CBD), was a nonviolent alternative to the military
where it is used to defend against an external invasion or an internal coup
d'etat.  This would have been approximately my view before this conference but
with a definite belief that the foundation for such defense is totally
dependent on the community-at-large learning to understand and use nonviolent
strategy and tactics by planning and executing nonviolent campaigns for social
change.  This rider implies that a grassroots transformation must accompany
Civilian-Based Defense.  Gene Sharp and others specify that the two should be
kept separate, taking the position that "CBD can be used effectively without
any transformation of society".
 
The broader view, particularly as it has evolved in Europe, is that you must
decide what it is about your society that you want to defend.  For example,
especially in many third world countries, many do not want to defend the
"state" that oppresses them, as the military does.  Those who hold this view
see social defense as a way of defending their culture, the ecology, their
ideologies and so forth.  Julio Quan was specific in defining Social Defense
for Central America as "the creation of a democratic or popular or grassroots
or people based power to insure economic, social, political, ideological and
ecological security".  I believe that most would agree that empowerment of the
population must occur as a fundamental requirement of effective people power. 
This probably involves overcoming fear, taking responsibility and similar
factors which are commonly associated with personal transformation. 
Therefore, I conclude that personal and social transformation is critical to
the success of this type of defense.  The debates on this issue were diverse. 
For example, it was said by someone that "to replace the military without
removing the fundamental causes would leave us in nearly the same situation as
we are now".  Another said they thought that "getting rid of the military
would be a tremendous step in the right direction."  In reality, I doubt that
there is really much difference in the two positions.  I sensed that both
groups felt happy that it was all happening at the same time.
 
Another clear division that occurred was that many people from the
"undeveloped" countries felt that some of the issues that most of the
"developed" countries' participants talked about were not relevant to them. 
In relation to this, I observed that there was not much agreement among first
world participants on which issues are most important while third world
participants seemed to be of the same mind.  The implication, to me, was that
there may not be time for third world people to focus, for example, on
environmental issues that do not clearly relate to basic survival issues like
poverty, sickness, torture and death.  Generally speaking, I got the
impression that there just wasn't space for third world activists to have the
luxury of worrying about things that more affluent people are concerned about.
This seemed to me to be a very important outcome.  I certainly had a rethink
about my priorities as I'm sure did many others.  I don't think the intention
was to imply that issues other than the kind dominating third world countries
were not important, but if first world people want to help the third world,
then they need to address factors in their control that are causing the
unacceptable situation there.  For example, address their subtle and overt
cooperation with the U.S., European and other governments that allow the
oppressive third world situations to exist.  This was my impression of what
the activists from the third world were getting at.
 
The last major outcome that I felt was especially important was the increased
awareness that many nonviolent struggles that had achieved "success" seemed to
come to a point where the struggle stopped while new governments or
politicians were given the space to keep the promises they had made.  By the
time it was clear that they were not going to keep their promises but instead
had used the space to "dig in" and entrench themselves so they can remain in
power, the social change organizations had lost their momentum and had to
almost start from scratch to build a movement against the new oppressor.  The
best example of this was the Philippines, where the people who had managed to
depose a longstanding ruthless dictator, gave the Aquino government the space
to keep the numerous unfulfilled promises and now consider the new government
to be as bad, if not worse than the hated dictator.  More recently, the new
government in India has reneged on its campaign promise to withdraw troops
from Sri Lanka.  Narayan Desai said that he observed a change in the people's
attitude that indicated that the Indian people may have decided that "they put
him there; if he doesn't do what he promised, then they'll just move him out
again."  I hope his observation is well founded.  Whatever the case, it seems
that there is a growing awareness that "constant vigilance" is a critical part
of nonviolent struggle.  Whatever organizations and activities have been
responsible for the success must be left in place and remain active, to insure
that the new powerholders do not betray their trust.
 
There is probably much, much more that is important to say, but there is not
enough time or space.  For example, in Switzerland and Austria, more than
thirty five per cent of both populations have supported a referendum to
entirely eliminate the military in their countries.  A very encouraging
development, don't you think?  Still, I have to wrap it up.  The conference
was very valuable to me and I believe to all that attended.  I felt at the
end, WOW!, an amazing amount has been achieved, but it seems like the more we
achieve, the bigger the problem gets.  I'm glad we're in this together.  Nafez
Assaily said at the end of the conference, "I love you all, I see a Messiah in
each of you".  My sentiments exactly.  Thanks for your help.
Jerry D. Smith