August, 2002
Note: A few weeks ago Tony Palmeri emailed a "Commentary Update" to viewers of the show that said, in part, the following: "Have you noticed that the public discussion about a possible attack on Iraq has been extremely one-sided? Even when antiwar positions are presented, they tend to be those opposed to war for practical reasons (e.g. 'it will be a quagmire,' 'the Europeans won't support us,' 'the entire Middle East will explode,' etc.). Views of pacifists or others opposed to war on principle are virtually absent from mainstream media. To try to provide at least some semblance of balance, Commentary this week features two members of the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), Donna Van Grinsven and Barbara Hoffman. The FOR is a pacifist organization that for more than 80 years has advocated peace and nonviolence." That statement prompted the following response from Commentary fan Peter Pagano:
I felt compelled to comment on your opening feature regarding pacifism and nonviolence.
These are attractive concepts that
unfortunately do not stand up to the reality of human nature and state-to-state
relations. Pacifism and nonviolent resolution of conflict only work when both
sides of the dispute seek a peaceful solution and/or share a common set of values
that include respect for life. When one side is bent on aggression, pacifism
is a nonstarter. Nonviolence did not stop Hitler's murderous rampage. The European
powers attempted to placate Hitler with political accommodation at Munich. Six
million Jews, Gypsies and others went passively to their death in the concentration
camps and Europe fell to Nazi occupation. Pacifism and nonviolence did not stop
Hitler's aggression and murder - force of arms did. I could cite Stalin's purges,
as well as Mao's and Pol Pot's campaigns against their political enemies as
well but the point is made. The mass murders of these communist tyrants ended
not because nonviolent protest compelled them to but because the dictators assessed
that they achieved their purpose. Those would be examples just from the recent
past. The historical record is replete with examples of pacifism and appeasement
encouraging aggression rather than deterring it. An entity (either a nation
state actor or an individual) bent on aggression and violence is not deterred
by displays of pacifism and appeals to conscience. Sure, The Iraqi people themselves
are good and decent and people. Iraq was the most progressive and advanced country
in the Arab world before it was hijacked by Saddam Hussein. They live in fear
of him and his security apparatus. Surely you are familiar with his police state
tactics. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people. But the reality is that they
are his tools through which he acts. How does one deter the likes of a Saddam
from engaging in aggression and state sponsorship of international terrorism?
Clearly he has no respect for life. Even if balance of power politics and military
deterrence contain Hussein, what of the Iraqi people?
Would the adherents of pacifism and nonviolence consign these
people to continued terror and oppression under Saddam and his sons?
Where has nonviolent resistance worked recently? India, in its
struggle for independence from the British empire, and even there it was not
completely nonviolent. Why did it work? Because Britain possessed the Judeo-Christian
culture of Western civilization that holds respect for human life. Also, as
a democracy its government was susceptible to public opinion, both domestic
and international. Another example of successful nonviolent resistance would
be from the civil rights movement of
African-Americans in this country. And for the same reasons. Pacifism and nonviolent
resistance may work in a democratic society, it does not work when directed
against a dictatorship immune to public opinion and bereft of respect for human
life. Just ask the Kurds of Iraq or the Tibetans living under Chinese occupation.
If you'd like to respond to Pete's opinion, please email palmeri@uwosh.edu