How can we nonviolently prevent nuclear war? Part 1

Worldwide nuclear explosions. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license. Author: Worldwide nuclear testing.svg

by James Manista

     1. Like so many in Congress we can ignore nuclear weapons and hope they go away—some in the new administration want to  restart talks—that’s progress

 2. The pope condemns war and nuclear weapons every so often but diplomatically hasn’t mentioned anyone by name

      3. Political oppositions must rise up in all nuclear nations and press   

          governments to reduce their numbers—zero’s a nice number.

      4. Convince the military to dismantle them—gotta include that one 

      5.  Wave a magic wand

No one knows how effective the new government will be. Obama promised to rid us of nukes and to close Guantanamo—still waiting. The pope has spoken for himself but most bishops are hardliners. Activist efforts continue despite setbacks. The fourth method is an outlier, but it has been tried. Ground Zero’s attempt last year to urge submariners to disobey unlawful orders (viz.,“Fire the missiles”) didn’t dent Trident. So keep waving that wand, Bubba. What do you do if writing your congress-person or upholding honkable banners is not yielding the desired results?

One method I didn’t mention is direct action (civil disobedience/ nonviolent resistance) which was first advocated by Henry David Thoreau against slavery and the war with Mexico. Ghandi employed it for civil rights in South Africa and against colonial rule in India. More recently Martin Luther King, Jr., and others used the same principles effectively in the struggles of the ‘sixties. However, the tactic has a risk not characteristic of the others of financial loss and/or incarceration.

It’s one thing to claim imprisoned heroes like Plowshares7 Jesuit priest Steven Kelly or Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange or soldier and intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden, leaker of National Security Administration surveillance methods; it’s quite another to follow in their footsteps.

In May of  2019, the Ground Zero Center for Non-Violent Action (GZ) emailed me about their proposal to protest at the Bangor-Kitsap Trident Base the weekend of May 11. Activists were invited to perform brief gestures of non-violent civil disobedience. They scheduled a morning of inspirational talks by GZ leaders and a keynote by Kathy Kelly, a well-known war-crime protestor and Afghanistan activist. In the afternoon a lawyer sympathetic to the cause would present legal information and instruction. Replying I’d attend, I ordered an 8’ x 3’ vinyl banner and contacted other Olympians to rideshare that day. 

By scheduling the event the day before Mothers’s Day they wished to remind people that holiday had close connections to peace advocacy. Ann Reeves Jarvis of West Virginia used her Mothers Friendship Day in 1868 to reconcile former Union and Confederate soldiers. Two years later the suffragette and abolitionist Julia Ward Howe authored her Mother’s Day Proclamation urging mothers to unite in promoting world peace.  

At the entrance of the Trident Base a one-foot-wide blue line, labeled US Government brightly in white, has been painted on each lane of the highway at Trident Boulevard, the Navy property. Knowledge of this line is critical to the nature of the GZ protests.

After lunch GZ’s legal advisor clarified for us that protestors who stand (dance, read poetry, sing peace songs, etc.) blocking highway traffic on the state side of the blue marker who also refuse to disperse when ordered to do so by the highway police will be cited for blocking access on a state highway and must report to a state court as notified to answer the charges. Those protestors who cross the blue line onto the base and stand (dance, read poetry, sing peace songs, etc.), who refuse to return to the state property when ordered by base security (the Marines) will be cited for federal trespass and informed they must report to a federal court. He could not make it plainer the federal violation is regarded as more serious—occasionally much  more serious—than the state offense.

We were then asked as to what course we’d choose without judgment as to our sincerity or dedication to the cause: 1. to stand alongside the highway; 2. to violate the state law; or 3. to violate the federal law. Eight stalwarts opted for the state side; I chose the federal side: the rest, about fifty in number (and average age), chose to march, sing, witness, and cheer.

GZ and Navy base security had earlier agreed on the site and timing to avoid dangerous surprises. Banners and signs in hand we proceeded to the base as state police cars gathered on an overpass, and Marines with protective vests and weapons, parked their van near the blue line.

First the eight formed a line in front of the blue demarcator and began with a song, followed by each demonstrator via bullhorn presenting his or her rationale for blocking the road: citing international law, recounting other heroic stands, praying and announcing recent comments of the pope. Finished, they stood in place, and as each was approached by the highway police to move off the road, they refused, and were in turn politely taken by an arm and led off to the berm where individual citations were drafted and delivered. 

As the last was led away I stepped forward with my banner held chest high, got to the center of the road, and took two steps behind the blue line. A Navy security officer told me to step back to the state side. I stood still and did not answer. Then he asked if I knew the meaning of the word trespass. I acknowledged I did and was approached by two guards, one who took the banner out of my hands while the other led me behind the van out of sight of the crowd.

They took several photographs (presumably for Navy and NSA records) while a guard asked for my ID and address. 

One guard, fearful I might faint, inquired if I preferred to sit on the van floor where the side was open. I did and gladly accepted a paper cup of water besides. Despite our training to remember carefully everything we were asked and said, there was some casual conversation before they returned my banner and took me back across the blue line. My allies cheered my return. The citation told me I would be advised within ninety days of my court date. 

Who is Anna Belen Montes? Part 1.

This image is a mash-up of various photographs of Ana Belen Montes compiled into one full High Res version.
Image by Marcus.rosentrater and is in the public domain.

If you want to believe the Washington Post, with its increasingly neocon voice, Ana Belen Montes, currently locked up at the U.S. Marines Air Station at Fort Worth, is a dangerous spy, guilty of “brazen acts of treason.”

On the other hand, maybe she is a whistle-blower, someone who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.” Maybe she should be grouped with other better known whistle blowers vilified in the corporate media—e.g., Daniel Ellsberg, Joe DarbyChelsea Manning, and Edward Snowdenall of whom exposed various forms of illegal state violence.

Here is what Sean Joseph Clancy, member of the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five (five Cubans recently pardoned by President Obama), tells us about Ana.

Ana Belen Montes, a Puerto Rican U.S citizen, with degrees in international relations, was recruited by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in 1985 and posted to the Bolling Air Base in Washington, where she worked as an intelligence investigation specialist. In 1992, she was transferred to the Pentagon, promoted to the position of Senior Analyst, and had access to almost all data on Cuba collected by the intelligence community. She spent time in a “fake” post with the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana to study the Cuban military and was sent back there in 1998 to “monitor Pope John Paul II’s visit.”

In September 2001, while working in her office in the DIA compound in Washington D.C., Ana was arrested by F.B.I. agents, and charged with espionage on behalf of Cuba. At her trial, she declared, “there is an Italian proverb that perhaps best describes what I believe: ‘The whole world is just one country. In this world country, the principle of loving others as oneself is an essential guide to harmonious relations between neighboring states.’ This principle implies understanding and tolerance of the different ways that others act. It establishes that we treat other nations the way we would like to be treated – with consideration and respect. In my opinion, we have unfortunately never applied this to Cuba.”

Ana went on to say, “In doing what has brought me before the court, I put my conscience above obeying the law. I believe our government’s policy on Cuba to be cruel and unjust and profoundly hostile. I felt morally obliged to help the island defend itself against our efforts to impose upon them our values and our political system….Why do we not let them decide how to manage their internal affairs, just as the U.S. has done for more than 200 years?…. We can see today more than ever that intolerance and hate – be it on the part of individuals or Governments – results only in suffering and grief.”

You decide. Spy? Whistleblower?

Learn more about Sean Joseph Clancy, author of this post, at http://en.escambray.cu/2013/the-irishman-who-dreams-with-the-cuban-five/

Does nonviolent resistance work? Part 2a

Rally at Ft Meade for Bradley Manning
Rally at Ft Meade for Bradley Manning
Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

The next three posts are Part II of a series of posts in which Dr. Ian Hansen shares his thoughts on nonviolence.

See also Part 1a, Part 1bPart 1c, Part2b and Part2c.

In March 17, 2014 post, I suggested that in their book Why Civil Resistance Works Chenoweth and Stephan provide  good evidence that:

  • relatively nonviolent movements are more likely to achieve their goals than exclusively violent movements, and
  • nonviolent movements are less likely to bring to power the type of people who drag their nations into bloody purges and genocidal-scope mass killings.

That said, recent history reminds us that nonviolent uprisings against brutal governments (e.g., Libya, Syria) can stir up mass participation with some significant likelihood of tilting towards violence (particularly if the state responds to the peaceful protests with psychotic carnage).

Moreover, mass movements in strategically important states (like Syria and Libya) also tend to attract the meddling interest of large regional powers—as well as global imperial powers—and this meddling can tilt the probabilities even further towards mass carnage.

The prognosis for exploited and manipulated nonviolent revolutions is probably still better than the prognosis for exploited and manipulated violent revolutions, though perhaps not better than the prognosis for cleverly innovating some new form of rebellion that authoritarian and imperial forces are not so confident about co-opting or disrupting.  The hacktivism of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden may be an example of this kind of avant garde rebellion.

Still, transforming the relations of power will require more than simply exposing the vileness of current state policies on the internet.  Tunisia may owe the tinder-striking moment for its revolution in part to Chelsea Manning’s whistleblowing courage and wikileaks’ reportage, but it still had to make a revolution in the streets.  The Tunisian revolution was televised (and tweeted) but it was live too, and without the live part it would not have succeeded.

Ian Hansen, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at York College, City University of New York. His research focuses in part on how witness for human rights and peace can transcend explicit political ideology. He is also on the Steering Committee for Psychologists for Social Responsibility.

1984–trumped

Little Sister says, “Now is the time to read or reread George Orwell’s 1984.” It is available online.

1984 is a disturbing portrayal of perpetual war, massive propaganda, government control of the media, and ubiquitous surveillance. Published in 1949, it is a chilling nightmare of a novel foretelling a future wherein people live in constant fear of Big Brother, who can monitor their every behavior from their own televisions.

Consider this information and decide for yourself whether that future is now.

The novel and the film based on it are horrifying, but–despite Orwell’s fertile and perhaps diabolical imagination–he failed to envision the wonders of technology with which Little Big Brother has flooded our communities, devices with the ultimate potential to track all our activities all the time.

For example, an updated version of 1984 would include:

Maybe what we need in 2014 is a less dystopian novel, 2014, in which Winston Smith, the hero of 1984, pulls together the shreds of democracy and faces down Big Brother. At his back he has:

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology