"A nonviolent approach to peace --
is it possible?" with Peter Ackerman
A military front is the most obvious plan in seeking an
immediate effect, but the long-term ideal of achieving peace will require a
much more nonviolent approach.
Part of the series: Reflections on a Changed World
The war on terrorism
has begun, and it can be difficult to know what progress has been made. A
military front is the most obvious plan in seeking an immediate effect, but the
long-term ideal of achieving peace will require a much more nonviolent
approach. Is this possible? Is this realistic to expect? What role can everyday
citizens of the world play in all of this?
Dr. Ackerman is a
well-known scholar and lecturer in the field of nonviolent conflict. His first
book Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in
the Twentieth Century (co-authored with Christopher Kruegler),
published in 1994, was used in research and development of the recent PBS series
A Force More Powerful. His second book, A Force More Powerful: A
Century of Nonviolent Conflict was co-authored with Jack DuVall and published by
Dr. Ackerman's
comments came during a live spirituality.com online event on
SPIRITUALITY.COM HOST: Dr. Ackerman, it's a
pleasure having you join us. Let's go ahead and get to the questions.
MagicMike: At this point, is a
war with
DR. ACKERMAN: There is definitely
hope. President Bush laid out a series of conditions, some of which are more
critical than others, including full identification and elimination of weapons
of mass destruction. Assuming that can be accomplished in a timely way, then
the impetus for an invasion would largely evaporate.
Mass_Ave: What is the first step
toward nonviolent resolutions?
DR. ACKERMAN: Let's define terms.
The work I have been involved with relates to the subject of civilian-based
resistance or nonviolent conflict. This is a strategic set of issues related to
the best way to link up strikes, boycotts, protests, economic sabotage and
other forms of pressure to undermine the basis for dictatorship or foreign
occupation. The subject is not primarily focused on conflict resolution but on
how to bring pressure to bear by civilians who want a transition to democracy.
The idea of nonviolent resolution of conflict is much different than the idea
of civilian resistance. The latter has been used in
Peaceful: Many people think that
nonviolent resistance is very passive, but that is a big misconception. Do you
agree?
DR. ACKERMAN: Absolutely! nonviolent resistance is active, aggressive, and packs a
wallop! If we defined a wallop as something intended to undermine the power and
support of a tyrant or dictator. The theory underlying nonviolent resistance,
as to why it succeeds, would include the observation that in the cases
mentioned above that were successful and most recently in
Progress: Has
DR. ACKERMAN: It is too early to
tell. From a tactical point of view it seems like this quick response could
diffuse the support of those like
Philip: Why isn't military
force a good means of resolving the threat that
DR. ACKERMAN: It might be the best
response but that is too simple an answer because you need to contemplate what
kind of military force would be the most successful. As defined by the goals of
regime change, coupled with reduction of casualties among Iraqi civilians,
coupled with issues of what is more likely to create a more stable and
democratic Iraq when the fighting is over.
It is more than the
theoretical possibility that a military action could bring great benefit to the
region but make no mistake, the opposite could also be
true. With Saddam using chemical or biological weapons during the conflict with
large civilian casualties leading to resentment of
Tigger: Any chance military
leaders, like the president, will ever think of nonviolent methods instead of
war?
DR. ACKERMAN: The issue isn't
either/or—nonviolent resistance or military invasion. The issue is how to
design a process that will maximize our interests and those of the world as
defined in a previous answer. The key to a nonviolent resistance movement in
The virtue of the
nonviolent resistance movement is that it dissipates the loyalties and creates
the splits that leave Saddam much weaker. This effort is worthwhile whether or
not we undertake military action. This is something that should be thought about
right now.
Without being
specific, let me say that I have firsthand knowledge that it is being
considered. The possibilities of nonviolent resistance are being considered as
we speak among US government officials. For this, I am grateful.
Tortilla: I feel helpless in
stopping the war—what can just one person do?
DR. ACKERMAN: Pray! And know the
right set of ideas will unfold to keep everyone safe.
Butternut: Are you a spiritual
person? If so, how does that play into your line of work?
DR. ACKERMAN: Let me answer this
impersonally. The ideas underlying nonviolent resistance and civilian-based
defense are best expressed strategically, rather than morally, as you would see
with the concepts of passive resistance or non-violence. But the power of
civilian-based resistance or nonviolent conflict is that it can only be used in
the service of those seeking justice and democracy. It is very difficult, if
not impossible, for nonviolent techniques of warfare to be put in the service
of base goals like the accretion of power or wealth, or the domination of one
society over another.
I have never seen a
successful nonviolent invasion of a country against its neighbor. So if the
goals are consistent with spiritually progressive motivations, one could assume
further that there would be parties amongst your opponents that would be
responsive to these nonviolent pressures. In the sense that it would ignite
their desire to act in a humanitarian way, rather than obey the dictates of a
tyrant who is willing to use all forms of horrible oppression.
Expressed differently,
nonviolent resistance works because not everyone is as ready to commit human
rights violations as is the man at the top. And if that is the case, the
potential exists to split the loyalties of the police and military who want to
behave more like children of God and less like perpetrators of crimes against
humanity. Nonviolent resistance exploits this conflict within individuals who
seem to be in opposition but in the end may behave very differently.
Wondering: Are there fewer wars
than there were 2,000 years ago?
DR. ACKERMAN: I don't know, but
there are parties who follow these statistics. You might try to contact one of
them.
Queenie: What is a recent
example of successful nonviolent resistance?
DR. ACKERMAN: The overthrow of
Milosevic. Dramatic, decisive and surprising.
Kippy: What are some of the
key objective with nonviolent resistance?
DR. ACKERMAN: The most important one
is to overthrow a dictator or expel an invader, both who are ruling corruptly
and with excessive force. Unfortunately there are many of those cases still in
the world.
TiffR: You published your
first book back in 1994. Since that time…on a global level…have things gotten
better or worse?
DR. ACKERMAN: That is an excellent
question! But of course, hard to answer. If you are asking whether there are
fewer casualties from conflict in the world on average over the past few
decades the answer would probably be yes.
The way I would think
of answering the question is "How dangerous is the world today? Is it more
dangerous than the past few decades?" There I would probably say it is
less dangerous but it is not entirely clear that is the case. The greatest
threat until the end of the Cold War was the carnage of battles between massed
armies. Today the greatest threat to loss of life is weapons of mass
destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear) delivered by a few disgruntled
individuals. Those weapons, which used to be under the control of governments,
are now far more portable and able to be concealed. This is a new threat
requiring new methods to deal with it both from a material and conceptual point
of view. You could deter the
Philip: What do you think the
goal of the people in
DR. ACKERMAN: That's easy—a free
united country with private property, contracts, and open and competitive
political processes, respectful of individual rights and tolerant of all
religions and ethnicities.
Stephie: How can we rally
civilians of other countries like
DR. ACKERMAN: Two ways.
One—training; and two—helping them develop independent sources of communication
so many in Iraq can express dissent at reasonable levels of risk. If enough
people can express dissent simultaneously, this can create an overwhelming
force. An example of the power of communication systems—the
Rebecca: What are the countries
where you think nonviolent resistance might realistically work today?
DR. ACKERMAN: I don't know what
realistically means. Every place it was successful in the past 20 years it was
considered to be unrealistic. So the real ideal is to make them more vulnerable
to a nonviolent resistance. The first is the "know-how" and courage
of the general population. The second is the ability to undermine the pillars
of support enjoyed by the opponent. Interestingly, the willingness to be brutal
is not necessarily to make you the most vulnerable opponent. In fact, in some
cases, a brutal dictator is also a brittle dictator. His hold on his military
and police is becoming tenuous. This may be the case with Saddam as we speak.
Kab: Could you go into a
little detail about how Milosevic was overthrown?
DR. ACKERMAN: The bombing over
Kosovo occurred in the middle of 1999. After it ended, latent opposition forces
began to develop independent pockets of opposition in 70 cities and villages
throughout
After being resoundly defeated in December 2000, Milosevic tried to
defraud the election. At this point all the preparation of the prior eight
months (and longer) paid off. First, the coal miners union went on a general
strike. Elements of the entire population started to flow into
Decker: Do you think the
events of 9/11 will help or hurt society in embracing more nonviolent tactics?
DR. ACKERMAN: It is not clear what
will be the result, except to say that these horrible events were a wake-up
call for strategic theorists as well as the population at large to think in new
and conventional ways, about how
Iggy: Who are some of your
heroes or mentors in this field?
DR. ACKERMAN: The man I studied
under is Gene Sharp, who wrote a book called The Politics of Nonviolent
Action. I recommend this book to you. It is the primer for the field.
Cordy: You said something
earlier about the decision between military and non-violence resistance not
being a question of either/or, but a mix. How does one know the right mix of
these to put in place?
DR. ACKERMAN: Excellent question!
They each have their separate purposes. Military invasion makes sense when
conducted by those with a strong military superiority. Hence, the US Armed
Forces become the logical player. Nonviolent resistance is conducted by a local
population with the means available in their everyday civilian life. Arming
them makes no sense. So the question to the best mix—it is really what can each
contribute to the ultimate goals in any particular point in time and which
contribution at any point in time is more valuable. That is a very situation
driven estimate to me. Nearly impossible to do before the conflict begins.
Gstaples: I have seen the power
of peer mediation and conflict resolution in secondary schools. Are these
programs helpful in working toward world peace? Are these programs happening in
other parts of the world?
DR. ACKERMAN: I don't know enough
about mediation techniques except to say they are well integrated into diplomatic
practice. And therefore an important component in defining the final
disposition of the battle, once it is over, or in preventing the battle from
starting in the first place. Nonviolent conflict is focused on that
intermediate place where the conflict could not be avoided and yet to be
resolved. Therefore it is an alternate form of weapon to be wielded to maximize
a population's interest in seeking freedom.
Stephie: It seems the relations
between countries are far more delicate than they used to be, for all the
reasons you mentioned. But would a nonviolent resistance produce results
quickly enough to alleviate the threat of nuclear attack?
DR. ACKERMAN: That is a very
difficult question to answer in the abstract except to say that there are 47 countries
that are not democracies in the world today and directly or indirectly they are
the source of the most dangerous threats to world peace and offer the most
significant risk in terms of loss of life.
SPIRITUALITY.COM HOST: We are just about out
of time, and I know we could go on much longer. Any thoughts to leave us with
Dr. Ackerman?
DR. ACKERMAN: I appreciate the
questions I have received. I hope I have answered them clearly and that you've
been exposed interesting new perspectives on the nature of conflict. Thank you
again.
SPIRITUALITY.COM HOST:
Thanks
so much for joining us, Dr. Ackerman. It has been a pleasure.