Nonviolent Model of National Security

 

 

Transition from Military Defense to Civilian Defense

 

      Systems of military defense:   products of warism

 

      System of civilian defense:   approach under pacifism

 

 

Pledge/Performance of Non-Violent Resistance

 

      Know in advance the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of control

 

      Similarity and Difference to Military Defense

 

-- Like any credible defense, not forsake moral obligation to defend the innocent

 

-- Unlike virtually all nuclear defense and most conventional defense, if used, can avoid large-scale destruction of human life and the environment


Military vs Civilian Defense

 

 

      Theory of deterrence

 

-- Military defense

      Often, if not always, immoral

      Technological advances make more ineffective

 

-- Civilian defense

      At least in some of its forms is moral

      In many cases can be effective

 

 

      Plan of Action

 

-- Military defense

      Frequently, if not always,  immoral

      Many times is ineffective

 

-- Civilian defense

      Generally, though not necessarily, moral

      In many circumstances can be effective

 

 

      Type of Strategy

 

-- Best:       moral and effective system

 

-- Worst:    immoral and ineffective system

 

-- Mixed:   choice of a moral but ineffective system or an immoral but effective system


Theory of Deterrence:  Military vs Civilian Defense

 

 

    Military Defense and Standing Military Organization

 

-- Ever more sophisticated & destructive technologies

 

-- Very capital intensive

 

-- Even higher level of threatened violence

 

 

      Civilian Defense and Deterrence

 

-- Maintains trained citizen resisters in place of a standing military organization

 

-- Labor intensive

 

-- Civilian defense also relies on a threat

 

      Threatened with massive non-cooperation

 

      Avoids moral burden of justifying potential mass destruction of human life


Plan of Action:  Military vs Civilian Defense

 

 

      Military strikes against the enemy

 

-- Troops comprise minority of the population in war and peace

 

-- Majority of citizens avoid close scrutiny of defense policy and the international actions undertaken by the military

 

 

      Civilian defense also has a plan of action

 

-- Train citizens prior to aggression against nation

 

-- Important differences

 

      Effective civilian defense involves training majority of the citizens of the nation:  maximum distribution of responsibility

 

      Avoids annihilation, if deterrence fails

 

-- Like nuclear and conventional deterrence, it may fail

 

-- Does not respond in kind


Type of Strategy:  Military vs Civilian Defense

 

 

      Military Defense and Theory of Victory

 

-- Deploy troops and weapons until victory is achieved or all resources are exhausted

 

-- Accept annihilation of military, and perhaps even population, before submitting to conquest

 

-- If occupied, guerrilla attacks:  violence as response to violence

 

 

      Civilian Defense and Practice of Non-Defeat

 

-- Occupation as only the beginning of the struggle

 

-- May not be more successful than guerrilla attacks

 

      Distinctive because avoids Manichean reduction of the enemy to an irredeemably evil adversary

 

      Enemy always remains human, that is, someone with whom communication and agreement may always be possible


The Offensive Use of Defense Systems

 

 

      Military offense

 

-- Military offenses can range from small-scale strikes to full-scale invasion and occupation

 

-- Military offense seeks to depose of the government by introducing violent force from the outside

 

 

      Civilian offense

 

-- Civilian offenses can range from intervention against a nation to the introduction of sufficient civilian defenders to disrupt the ability of the government to control the nation

 

-- Civilian defense seeks to delegitimate the government by cultivating non-violent non-cooperation from the inside

 

 

      Violation of the sovereignty of another nation

 

-- Morally, intervention may be justified, if certain principles of human rights and social justice are held higher than the autonomy of the state

 

-- Pragmatically, unless civilian defense can be used offensively, advocates of military defense can argue insufficiency of civilian defense since governments continue to greatly harm their own peoples


Between Silence and Violence

 

 

      Intervention:  Justifications and Limitations

 

-- Silence as tacit sanction of injustice

 

-- Counterproductiveness of violence as response to injustice

 

      If war, also the injustice of its violence

 

-- War, even if waged to eradicate an injustice, involves injustice

 

-- Appear caught between horns of a dilemma

 

      But not all interventions against injustice are violent

 

 

      National security and global justice as between silence and violence

 

-- Diplomacy properly functions in this continuum

 

-- Civilian defense and offense as complementary to diplomacy

 

      Clausewitz termed war "politics by other means"

 

      Civilian defense should be understood as "politics by the same means"


Peace-Making as Between Silence and Violence

 

 

Type of

 

Justice

or

 

Violence

Covert

 

Institu-tional

 

Violence

Justified,

 

Non-Violent

 

Talk

Justified,

 

Non-Violent

 

Action

Overt

 

Institu-tional

 

Violence

Approach to

Injustice

 

Silence

 

Diplomacy

 

Civilian

Defense

 

Military

Defense

 

 

 

Range of

 

Examples

Racism

 

 

Sexism

 

 

Classism

 

Discussion

 

 

Negotiation

 

 

Arbitration

Protest

 

 

Non-Cooperation

 

Intervention

State terrorism

 

Civil war

 

 

Interna-tional War