Einstein Institute Delegation Discusses Civilian-Based Defense With Lithuanian Officials In declaring nonviolent struggle to be its primary means of resistance in the event of a Soviet occupation, Lithuania is one of the first states to actively pursue a policy of civilian-based defense. Government officials, social scientists, and political activists are now examining the field of nonviolent action to gain insights for their country's struggle. As part of their exploration of the nature and potential of nonviolent struggle, the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently invited representatives of the Albert Einstein Institution to Vilnius, Lithuania's capital. From April 24 to May 1, Gene Sharp, Peter Ackerman, and Bruce Jenkins discussed the Institution's research on nonviolent action and civilian-based defense with several audiences: President Vytautas Landsbergis; the Director-General of the Department of National Defense, Mr. Audrius Butkevicius; representatives of the Lithuanian militia; members of the parliamentary Committee on National Defense and Internal Security; social scientists at the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Russian Orthodox Archbishop Khrisostom; and activists of the Lithuanian reform movement Sajudis. The Einstein Institution representatives were invited to Vilnius not to advise officials on their struggle for independence, but rather to discuss the nature and the strategic dimensions of nonviolent conflict. In examining how best to organize their society's resources for civilian-based defense, Lithuanians are raising important questions and issues for consideration by scholars of nonviolent sanctions. One such issue concerns the conceptualization of nonviolent action as; technique of active struggle, requiring strategic analysis and coordination. From street rallies to the creation of Lithuanian postage stamps, from political boycotts to human barricades, Lithuanians have employed numerous methods of nonviolent action. Yet these actions have generally been isolated or spontaneous events, lacking in coordination. To each audience, Dr. Sharp outlined the technique approach to nonviolent action, its methods, dynamics, and requirements for effectiveness, repeatedly emphasizing that this was a form of conflict, not inaction or peaceful behaviour. To be effective, Dr. Sharp said, nonviolent action required strategic planning. An issue of central importance to the field of nonviolent sanctions was repeatedly raised in Vilnius: can violent and nonviolent forms of resistance be combined? Although nonviolent resistance has been deemed Lithuania's primary mode of defense, in mid-1990 the Lithuanian government began organizing an armed national militia. Partly as a means to assert national sovereignty and partly as a way to provide an officially sanctioned structure for the thousands of Lithuanian men who refused to serve in the Red Army (9,500 in 1990), the "Volunteers" have been assigned the task of defending of official buildings and institutions, vowing to give their lives if need be. At a meeting in the barricaded parliament building, the question was raised whether, in the event of an attack, one could combine nonviolent civilian resistance with limited military or paramilitary resistance by security forces. Dr. Sharp urged caution in considering this question. Even limited violent resistance, he said, could disrupt the dynamics of nonviolent struggle, such as the process of political jujitsu. Also, Dr. Sharp continued, military or paramilitary resistance could undermine attempts to weaken the morale of the opponents' forces through specific methods of nonviolent action. "Troops under fire, with friends dying next to them, are not likely to question their own actions," Dr. Sharp said. In addition, military or paramilitary resistance could also vastly increase civilian casualties as well as reduce the likelihood of third-party support. Another problem-area raised during our discussions in Vilnius and Kaunas was how best to combat organized terrorist activity directed against nonviolent resisters. The Soviets, we were told, had supplied arms to certain groups in Lithuania opposed to independence. This problem, under different conditions, has been confronted both in South Africa (where the African National Congress has considered forming armed defense units to guard against vigilante violence) and in the Israeli-occupied territories (where Palestinians have been faced with Jewish settler attacks). In Lithuania, the question arose whether normal police functions - with the clearance to use lethal force - could be separated from general nonviolent resistance activity. The problem of protecting nonviolent resisters against armed attacks by groups not under the direct formal control of the opponent requires urgent consideration by scholars in the field of nonviolent sanctions. Another issue of grave concern to Lithuanian defense planners is the threat of a renewed economic blockade. Lithuania imports ninety-seven percent of the fuel it consumes - all from the Soviet Union. Lithuania has few independent sources of foreign currency and is thus unable to purchase its fuel oil on the world market. Furthermore, foreign oil tankers hoping to deliver oil to the Lithuanian port at Klaipeda would most likely be stopped by the Soviet navy in the event of a blockade. After the 1990 blockade, Lithuania increased oil exploration in its own territory and set up direct barter exchanges with oil-rich Soviet republics. However, these steps are not likely to provide adequate alternatives for energy in the event of a renewed blockade. Lithuanian officials are exploring ways to establish more sources of hard currency and Lithuanian researchers are examining how economic blockades have been circumvented in the past. Lithuanian officials, academics, and political activists are also concerned with the link between prevailing economic conditions and the population's willingness to mobilize in the event of an attack. Problems in the supply of consumer goods, large price increases, and slow progress in the area of privatization have caused much social dissension in Lithuania. One academic told us that the credibility of the Sajudis movement (which comprises an overwhelming majority in the parliament) had hit an all time low due to deteriorating economic conditions and political infighting. He postulated that the population would not respond with much enthusiasm to protect an increasingly unpopular government in the event of a crisis. The questions and problem-areas presented to the representatives of the Einstein Institution indicate the seriousness with which Lithuanian officials, academics, and activists are examining civilian-based defense. Lithuanian researchers will be intensively exploring the literature on nonviolent resistance in the coming months. Translations of works on nonviolent action are in progress, including Gene Sharp's Civilian-Based Defense. Lithuania could well be the first country to implement a prepared policy of nonviolent resistance for defense. Though there is much pressure in the Lithuanian government and Department of National Defense to employ military and paramilitary forces for specific objectives (such as for a last show of defence in protecting the parliament building), President Landsbergis, Director-General Butkevicius, and the Supreme Council have all declared their intent to pursue a policy of civilian-based defense; they are now confronted with translating this intent into practice. Lithuanians have suffered greatly since declaring independence. The three-month economic blockade in 1990 shut off almost all of Lithuania's fuel supplies and caused the production of consumer goods to fall by half. Goods and materials have been seized. Buildings have been occupied. And on January 13, 1991, Soviet troops opened fire on unarmed civilians surrounding the Vilnius television transmission tower. Fourteen people died. Despite such Soviet pressure, intimidation, and force, Lithuanians remain defiant in their pursuit of independence. On February 9, 1991, Lithuanians, in a plebiscite, were asked the following question: "Are you in favour of the Lithuanian Republic being an independent, democratic state?" More than ninety percent of eligible voters answered "yes." Lithuania then, in turn, boycotted Soviet President Gorbachev's referendum on a renewed Soviet federation. Lithuanian flags and symbols are displayed throughout the country. Employees of Vilnius radio and television stations are conducting a rotating hunger strike directly in front of their bullet-scarred office building, now occupied by Soviet troops. Lithuania has also taken its struggle into the Soviet heartland, where it has established contacts and signed treaties with other independence-minded governments in other Soviet republics. In April of this year, Lithuanian workers shipped food directly to striking workers in Minsk. With the preparation of a civilian-based defense policy, Lithuanians are examining how to make their country "politically indigestible." In the event of a Soviet attack, concentrated and coordinated forms of mass civilian resistance will be brought to bear on the attackers. Furthermore, international and internal Soviet pressures will be mobilized. In such a scenario, Lithuania may prove too much of a burden for the Soviets to maintain control over. Bruce Jenkins From Nonviolent Sanctions, (vol. II, no. 4, Spring 1991) published quarterly by the Albert Eistein Institution, 1430 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.