There is all this political talk about 'security' - national security; global security. In this context, the orthodox idea seems to be that 'security' is synonymous with 'military'. Security is achieved through military interventions and war.
What is security, really? On my definition, it is to feel safe; to feel free from harm...in a global context, to be without conflict. There is an idea called 'human security', which goes much further than the typical militarised version in explaining what security really is. On a 'human security' definition, we look at geopolitical, social, economic and environmental conditions that might endanger or negate the quality of human life. Immediately we see that for humans to be secure, we need to involve much more than the military. We need to fight poverty, injustice, discrimination, environmental degradation. We must stop conflict. But increased militarisation is not the way to do this.
Australia is involved in 'securing' places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but it doesn't seem like those places are very secure. In fact, the military intervention that defines security has resulted in a lot of civilian death, a lot of homelessness and a lot of poverty. Also a lot of environmental degradations - Iraq is really radioactive now, as a result of all the nuclear-powered artillery used there. Australian Defense Force public relations is quick to remind us about all the reconstruction work they conduct in Afghanistan. Yet after 7 years of Coalition forces in Afghanistan, the country remains in tatters. Average life expectancy is 44 years. Between 53% and 80% of Afghan people live below the poverty line. Adult literacy is 29%. The continued presence of war and violence is not helping things. The UN and Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) has condemned indiscriminate killings by US-NATO forces of unarmed civilians, including wedding parties and many children. Military effort in Afghanistan, aimed at establishing a 'democratic' (or pro-US) government, is not making things very secure.
If US-NATO forces left Afghanistan, there would be no pro-US, puppet government. However, the region may actually be more secure. Some commentators suggest that the continued US presence actually revived and provoked the Taliban, by providing a clear opposition and fuel beyond their otherwise domestic concerns. A NATO withdrawal could facilitate a peace process. The solution lies in peaceful dialogue, not military violence.
The ridiculous, thoroughly ingrained paradox is that violence leads to peace. This is a myth. Violence never leads to peace. It might suppress conflict temporarily, but the conflict will rise again, like ants from a hole that has been sat on by something big. Certainly, violence does not contribute to security. Security is achieved when there is social, economic and environmental justice.
The 'violence to peace' myth permeates our society. It is seen as a legitimate form of conflict resolution - in the home, on the street, in the bars and clubs. Police shoot knife-wielding 15 year olds, rather than finding nonviolent alternatives. This is not security. This simply promotes more violence.
4 comments:
I felt the strongest statement that stood out of all your thoughts was that "The 'violence to peace' myth permeates our society."
The fact is however, if someone is about to shoot me, I have no viable non-violent response that would shield me and my loved ones from his/her violent action other than to suppress the immediate threat. In practice, it would involve violent counter action. Is it not the existence/presence of violence either in government action or in society that sanctions and justifies violent responses by the ‘victims’?
I cannot think of a rational way of controlling violence between individuals. However, violence in society can be controlled because in the social scale, violence is always used by a united minority (ruling class, military, armed minority groups) against a divided (and therefore helpless) and silent majority (the exploited masses who sometimes even collude with those who perpetrate violence against them or others like them in return for petty favours). Therefore non-violent counter-action is a viable response in society if the victimised majority can unite. This was the defining characteristic of Ghandi’s non-violent resistance to British rule.
Yeah, I struggle with that too, Haren - if somebody was pointing a gun at me or a loved one, and I also had a gun, would I use it out of self-defence? What would be a non-violent solution?
Ghandi's non-violence resistence was about systemic violence, rather than violence against individuals. It takes imagination to apply those principles to individual threats of violence. P'Chang is an organisation that teaches non-violent strategies. We've had some training from them for our work at Credo Cafe - for example, what to do when two people are threatening each other with violence. Non-violent ways of diffusing the situation could include throwing a bucket of water, or squawking like a seagull. In a place like Credo, these things are much more effective than responding with violence. We also try to work together as much as possible - similar to Ghandi's idea of uniting to overcome violence.
But still, I have no effective non-violent method of stopping someone shooting me. Does a commitment to non-violence sometimes involve being shot?
http://www.groundviews.org/2008/12/07/fidels-ethics-of-violence/
I would not expect you to agree or disagree with these views, but I am sure it will add another perspective to the discourse.
We should of learnt this lesson from WWII occuring, and then the sucess of the Marshel Plan at creating relative peace in those areas after the War.
Post a Comment