Civilian-Based Defense: A Post-Military Weapons System
By Gene Sharp, with the assistance of Bruce Jenkins. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ. 1990.166 pp. $20 US hardcover. Not available in
paperback.  On order with Groundswell Books, PO Box 292, West End, Qld 4101.

All who are interested in a better way of settling international disputes and
overthrowing dictators than by violence should have this book in their
libraries.  It is the only current and comprehensive book available on the
subject of nonviolent action as a deterrence and defense system.

Even if one has read each of Sharp's previous books this book is needed
because 1) it updates one on the latest developments relating to nonviolence
defense in Eastern Europe, the Philippines, China, etc.; 2) it summarizes the
essence of Sharp's previous works with current comments as well as materials
from other sources on pre-revolutionary war America, El Salvador, etc.; 3) it
includes much new information, especially in the last chapter, on the way
that civilian-based defense can be implemented; 4) it is the best written of
all Sharp's books, perhaps in part due to the assistance of Bruce Jenkins.

Sharp likes to use the word "struggle" to differentiate the approach of CBD
from that of people who think peace can come in a quiet way.  Sharp reminds
readers that there will always be conflict because there will be people and
nations that seek to dominate or take resources from others.

The basic concept with which he deals is that power does not come from the
"barrel of a gun" as Mao used to say - but from the people.  Only when the
citizens of a country give their assent to a government or to an invader can
these rule.

Sharp has come a long way from his strong advocacy of pacifism in the forties
and fifties, as secretary to A. J. Muste, and editor of the British Peace
News.  In his 1980 prize-winning essay, Making the Abolition of War A
Realistic Goal, he writes, "Mass conversions to pacifism will not occur" and
"unilateral 'disarmament' - abandonment of defense capacity - is no
alternative to the war system and is not possible."  (He might have made an
exception of Costa Rica.)  In his current book he says the pacifist view is
that "war itself is worse than any political evil..."

Sharp holds that the support for CBD must be broader than that of the peace
movement if it is to become national policy.  Therefore, while still speaking
to groups within the peace movement, such as Pax Christi, Sharp has
specialized in appealing to the masses of people who are not pacifists and to
military leaders.  He uses military terminology and his pragmatic arguments
can be understood by higher officers in the military in any country.  He
often speaks with them and featured them at the Einstein Institution's
"National Conference on Nonviolent Sanctions in Conflict and Defense,"
February, 1990.

Believing that CBD should not be the captive of any one ideology he has
appealed to conservatives as well as liberals with success.  For example,
conservative Catholic ethicist, George Weigel, has said that Sharp is the
first person in the 'peace movement' who has dealt realistically with power
in relation to defense.  Conservative Republican Senator Mark Hatfield wrote
an introduction to Sharp's 1980 book, Social Power and Political Freedom.

This latest book by Sharp should have strong appeal to the pragmatism of the
average American and especially to the military mind that is open to the
possibility of a better defense.

In this book Sharp deals with the question of deterrence.  CBD can deter
because it could convince the possible attackers that the consequences of
invasion would be too costly.  It could also harm the invading country
economically, hurt its international relations, and prove unsatisfying for
the troops who could not achieve success in conquest.  He could also have
said that the invading troops might learn the approach of nonviolent
resistance and take it back home to overthrow their own government. Most
leaders with hopes of conquest abroad might be deterred.

One of the points of Sharp's previous book, Making Europe Unconquerable,
which is repeated here, is that deterrence with CBD is much superior to
nuclear deterrence.  If either works, all is well. But if nuclear deterrence
does not deter then nuclear war must be used, to the possible destruction of
both sides.  If deterrence with CBD does not work, then the CBD "fighting
capacity" is actualized.  If successful, democracy is restored or the country
defended.  If CBD does not defend there are still people left to try again at
another time.  The nuclear threat has been much lessened from the USSR. 
However, with proliferation it may come from other sources.

One of Sharp's many strengths is his tendency to not overstate the power of
CBD.  In areas where he does not feel CBD would work well, he calls for more
research.  Even if it does not work in one small area, this does not rule out
its general relevance.

Sharp points out that aggression for land or genocide has been countered, in
the past, with nonviolent action.  Even the Nazi conquerors had to conclude
that they needed the cooperation of the Slavic inhabitants of Eastern Europe
- whom they considered subhuman - if they were to carry out their plans for
extermination.  And Sharp claims that the aggressors' home population, other
governments, and international bodies could, in the past,have halted the
genocide.  However, he points out, with the advent of new "fast-kill"
technology there might not be time.  Sharp calls for more analysis and
research while pointing out that some nonviolent resistance against the
Holocaust in Nazi- conquered areas was successful.

Admitting that conventional CBD does not work when an aggressor tries to
seize specific naval bases, airports, or mineral resources, Sharp advocates
civilian-based "forward strategy."  This involves spreading the news about
how CBD works to dissatisfied groups in the aggressor's country.  Uprisings
could result and the invasion might be cancelled or prevented.

Sharp considers training necessary for true CBD.  He does not consider
spontaneous acts of nonviolent resistance to be CBD.  Yet he does cite them
as useful illustrations of how nonviolent struggle worked, at least
temporarily, without planning.  He asks how well military defense would work
if there were only last-minute improvisation.

The four best illustrations from history, also cited in Making Europe
Unconquerable, are discussed as historical prototypes: the overthrow of the
Kapp Putsch in Germany in 1920, the defense of French democracy in 1961 when
threatened by French military in Algeria, the German defense of the Ruhr
against the invasion of the French and Belgians in 1923, and the eight-month
resistance to the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968-69.  All but
the 1961 incident were part of Sharp's original masterpiece, The Politics of
Nonviolent Action, though with less elaboration at the time.

The famous Hitler quote that is so powerful an argument (If Hitler admitted
that nonviolent action would work, who can disagree?) was previously found
only in The Politics of Nonviolent Action and in the book essay, Making the
Abolition of War a Realistic Goal.  But it is given again in this 1990 book. 
Hitler wrote in July of 1943 that "ruling the people in the conquered regions
is, I might say, a psychological problem.  One cannot rule by force alone. 
True, force is decisive, but it is equally important to have that
psychological something which the animal trainer needs to be master of his
beast.  They must be convinced that we are the victors."  Throughout the book
Sharp deals well with the major questions which arise about nonviolent
defense, including why nonoffensive defense does not work as well as CBD. The
'dessert' chapter of the book is the final one, "Toward Transarmament".  Here
Sharp fills in what has been lacking in his past books - a plan for getting
from here to there.  He deals with motives that can inspire people to move
toward CBD.  He says that change in human nature is not required, nor a
change in the international or social system.  (Larry Gara, in his Active
Nonviolence slideshow, says that we must have a better society before we can
defend it with nonviolence.)  Sharp disagrees with Gara, as he writes, "All
societies should have a capacity to deter and defeat attacks in a
conflict-ridden world, by means that do not themselves threaten the
population with either years of paramilitary conflict or quick, massive
annihilation."  This will come about only when people realize that one should
not give up struggle (what many think is meant by 'disarmament') but should
arm themselves with something better (the meaning of 'transarmament').

Sharp has argued that the use of CBD along with military action limits the
effectiveness of CBD.  Yet he says that it is likely to come about in the
United States (as it has in Sweden) as a component of the mostly-military
total defense plan.  And we should support that.  Only when those responsible
for the defense of the country can have confidence in CBD will it be likely
to be adopted as a sole defense.  It could be expanded by stages, as its
usefulness is seen, Sharp says.

There may be some countries which can adopt it at once, however.  The man who
years ago suggested the name "civilian-based defense" to Sharp, Major General
Edward Atkinson (ret.), told me at the Einstein Conference that one possible
place where CBD could be used today would be in the new state of Palestine
when it is achieved.

While this review has focused primarily on defense against foreign
aggression, the power of CBD to defend a country against seizure by a
dictator should not be neglected.  General Leonard V. Johnson, who heads the
Plowshare Peace Center in Canada, holds that, with the decreased threat of
aggression from the USSR, the major use of CBD could be to prevent
dictatorships.

Sharp's analysis is outstanding - not only because he has studied military
strategy so well - not only because he has carefully researched the neglected
aspects of history not taught in a militaristic culture - but especially
because he is a brilliant sociologist and political scientist who understands
how society works.  For many years he taught sociology and political science
at Southeastern Massachusetts University.

When one reads this book, which I feel will become a classic, one will see a
vision of the real "new world order."  President Bush had a chance to show
this new world order by using non-military sanctions, but instead, gave war a
new lease on life.  However, the dream remains.
John M. Mecartney,
Coordinator of the Nonviolent Action for National Defense Institute, Detroit
From CBD News and Opinion, March 1991.