Category: Antimilitarism


Interview with Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan on their current research on the power and superior efficiency of nonviolent protest: http://t.co/22HvAoc5

Some short snippets from the interview:

“nonviolent resistance campaigns were twice as likely to achieve success compared to their violent counterparts”

“particularly against dictatorships, that nonviolent resistance is overwhelmingly more effective than armed struggle”

“the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance is actually increasing over time (…) people are learning, not only that it works but how it works”

Here I present a video recording of a speech by Erica Chenoweth focusing on her research  and that of others on why civil resistance works. Erica Chenoweth presents her findings including data on nonviolent resistance, creating a strong link between successful resistance against violence and using nonviolent methodology:

Here comes 15 minutes of a very insightful speech by Paul Chappell. This excerpt is mostly about the lengths, armies would go to to make people kill others and how many techniques, tricks and manipulations you actually need to achieve that. “What is the greatest problem of armies…? … Keeping in mind armies have lots of problems, food, supply, logistics, recruiting… getting soldiers to kill is a big problem. But there is an even bigger problem… it is getting soldiers to die … our flight response is far more powerful than our fight response. Most peoples natural reaction is to run away as far as they can as fast as they can.”

You can find the full about an hour speech over here.

The effects of war are tremendous, me myself never having experienced one thankfully, those who do and speak out about it, are both courageous and changed by it.

Here some former soldiers from Serbia are exchanging short personal stories and statements about the aftermath of war for their personal lives:

Some former US combatants from USA speak about some more general issues, partly concentrating on the practice of redeployng, sending already traumatized soldiers back into combat zones: View full article »

Amidst the joyful scenes in Tripoli and the satisfaction that Gaddafi’s 40-year-old dictatorship rule has finally come to an end (so reminiscent of the initial joy that greeted the fall & execution of Saddam in Iraq!?), there are, at the same time, some serious questions to be asked to our Western leaders: Is the NATO formula, as some would have us believe, the ideal solution for promoting peace in our modern world?

At first sight, the NATO triumph in Libya (and there can be no doubt that NATO and its individual members have played a leading role in removing the Libyan government) might indeed be celebrated as a victory for peace & democracy. On closer inspection, however, the question still has to be asked whether this formula is really the guarantee for human progress. Of course I do not expect everyone to agree with what I am about to argue, but I do hope that my following comments might evoke some critical thinking and even serious doubts on the legitimacy and efficacy of such a policy. View full article »

The last months have seen remarkably results of nonviolent protests in Tunesia and Egypt. Yemen may finally see a nonviolent solution to its people’s struggle, after many lives were lost in the last days.

The people of other countries were not so lucky (yet) – and probably not as experienced in nonviolent protest as the people in Egypt.

Right now, the UN security council resolution 1973 regarding Libya based on chapter 7 of the UN Charter calls all UN member states to help the people against their own government.  The resolution mainly consists of the following tools:

  • Immediate cease-fire
  • facilitate dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessaryto find a peaceful and sustainable solution
  • establish a No Fly Zone
  • Enforce the arms embargo
  • Asset freezing View full article »

Just stumbled upon an article on the Guardian, a British newspaper, reporting on a call for boycott on the annual census in Great Brittain. I was intrigued and read further… it turns out, one of the biggest war profiters of Earth, Lockheed Martin with it’s headquarter in the USA was chosen to conduct part of the census, by that earning around 150.000.000 pounds.

Now, why would anyone bother about that? Two reasons at least:

1. By doing contracts with arms producers, the war machine is supported and furthered.

2. Privacy security concerns, since US companies were used in the past to gather informations on foreign countries and companies. And what better information source than a nation wide census, right? This was already discussed in 2008 actually, when the contract went under way – as BBC is reporting.

View full article »

How cool is that! :D

Found a new handbook on how to create nonviolent campaigns created by war resisters international. They provide detailed informations and discussions around several important topics starting with an introduction to nonviolence, tasks and tools for doing trainings,  talking about the effect of campaigns, presenting success stories and 21 pages of exercises!

Just to quote some interesting parts:

Nonviolence strengthens a campaign in three ways:
1. Among participants in a campaign. In fostering trust and solidarity among
participants, they (ideally) are put in touch with the sources of their own
power to act in the situation. Many people don’t realise how creative they
can be until they have support of others in trying something new.

As a lot of you are aware, Service Civil International

has its name from trying to find and implement alternatives to military service – in many countries that is still problematic (you can find more informations about your country here) but even in countries where that is possible, once you enlisted in the army and later on realized the mistake you made, it is very hard to get out of it.

I stumbled upon someone having made that experience:

“Our unit did a lot of good things, giving schools books and bringing clothes to children,” he said. “These actions helped my conscience a bit, but I kept thinking to myself, ‘Had we not invaded, would these people need this aid now?’ ” Andre Shepherd

View full article »

Something I found very useful for discussing about nonviolence is the statement made by nineteen scientists from all around the globe in 1989. While partly being criticized for being moralistic, it is a source of inspiration and hope, to overcome the belief, that mankind is doomed biologically to wage wars and kill each other and this planet. I will go through the text and make some personal comments and remarks :) Feel free, to write comments as well!

IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors. Although fighting occurs widely throughout animal species, only a few cases of destructive intra-species fighting between organized groups have ever been reported among naturally living species, and none of these involve the use of tools designed to be weapons. Normal predatory feeding upon other species cannot be equated with intra-species violence. Warfare is a peculiarly human phenomenon and does not occur in other animals.

The fact that warfare has changed so radically overtime indicates that it is a product of culture. Its biological connection is primarily through language which makes possible the co-ordination of groups, the transmission of technology, and the use of tools. War is biologically possible, but it is not inevitable, as evidenced by its variation in occurrence and nature over time and space. There are cultures which have not engaged in war for centuries, and there are cultures which have engaged in war frequently at some times and not at others.

As the authors note, there have been observations of ape-species groups killing each other but that

View full article »