Dear NVT,
I would like to comment on St. John Kettle's review of the recent Peace
Dossier by Thomas Weber and Robert Burrowes (Nonviolence: An Introduction in
NVT #20).  Specifically, I refer to two matters raised as queries to the
authors' assumptions: firstly, that hierarchy is inherently violent:
secondly, that complete nonviolence is the human way of life, and that
violence at any level is inappropriate for human societies.

In addressing the first point I should make it clear that I am not answering
for the authors.  I believe that what they mean by hierarchy is - a social
arrangement that is accepted as fixed, where some people are regarded as
superior, as better, as more powerful and entitled to special benefits and
privileges - where others are graded in a range of inferior heredity
categories and which are accepted as part of the status quo.  These
constitute hierarchical social structures which generally persist over many
generations and are sustained by belief systems that posit a particular world
view.  In modern western democracies it may appear that the rigidity of
ancient hierarchical structures has been broken down.  But, while there is
greater mobility between divisions or classes, the general hierarchical
structure is still sustained by a world view now guided by modern science.

The illustration given by Kettle of a ship's captain is actually an example
of an organisational position.  The captain is in command of the ship because
of his knowledge of navigation etc., but this role is confined to the ship
and does not give him any special benefits in everyday life, or confer on his
heirs or relations any inherent privileges.  It is fairly obvious that in any
society it would be necessary for one or more people to be given special
organisational roles for carrying out certain tasks.  This does not make them
superior or better than others or give them rights to special privileges. 
The desirability of accepting and rejoicing in human differences can be
accepted in the same terms as the recognition of the equal worth of all
people.

Hierarchy in the terms outlined equates with violence because it endeavours
to set a structure in concrete while paying no heed to the foundations of
shifting sands; the world view which strives to sustain it envisages a
natural order of divisions which are unreal or untrue and cannot, in fact, be
sustained.

In relation to the second point, Kettle has stated that certain societies
have been preserved over long periods while enduring 'low key .... warfare'. 
But the question that needs to be answered for the modern
individual-in-society is : how I (and others) contain violence to something
appropriately 'low key'?  It is extremely difficult to extrapolate factors
from one society to another, especially when separated by centuries or
millennia, and it is necessary to carefully delineate comparative relevance. 
When we do take an historical view it is apparent that there has been a
gradual change in the level of societal violence with the growth in the
sophistication of weapons.  When clubs or spears were the weapons of warfare
the effects of violence were much more limited than when guns and bombs
became available.  With the proliferation of the means of mass destruction
how relevant is it to talk of low-key violence?  Certainly if modern football
can be considered as low-key warfare, and if societies could keep violence at
this level, it might be claimed that violence itself did not pose a problem. 
But we know that behaviour on the football field (or in some early societies)
is only part of the full picture we need to understand if we are to come to
grips with the problem of living in the modern world.

It is generally agreed that early societies which persisted had a high level
of co-operation between individuals and had a level of interactive
co-operative relationships with neighbouring societies.  The amount of
violence that did occur diminished but did not extinguish social life.  But
as inter-society violence has always been expressed by using the weapons
available, there is no chance for today's societies diminishing violence more
than cosmetically, short of abandoning it completely.

It is not merely for negative reasons that nonviolent or peaceful relations
may be rationally supported, but more tellingly from the viewpoint of the
much discussed issue of human rights.  The reality is that freedom, equality,
and justice, can only be actualised where the individual accepts
responsibility for co-operative, nonaggressive, nonviolent or peaceful
relations.  It is difficult to see how it is possible to support any form of
organised or premeditated armed force, aggressive or defensive, in the
exercise of human rights.
Les Hoey

Letters

Dear NVT,
I found the article by Robert Burrowes about the Gulf Peace Team very
interesting.  It is great to have information and analysis about what was
probably the first nonviolent team to stand in between armies in an effort to
prevent war.

However, I wish to point out a very serious error that Robert made many times
in the article, and that was to refer to 'United Nation Forces'. There were
no UN forces in the war zone.  There were a number of attempts by some UN
Security Council members (Columbia, Malaysia, Yemen and Cuba) to send a UN
Peacekeeping Force, a UN Observer Mission or a UN force to replace the US
lead forces, and pave the way for a peaceful withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. 
These attempts were prevented from occurring by other members of the Security
Council, in particular the USA and Britain.

The USA prevented other initiatives in the UN for a peaceful solution to the
crisis from being implemented (eg. use of the World Court, allowing
negotiations, allowing time for sanctions to work) and manipulated the
Security Council (mostly by bribing SC members) into allowing them to use
force against Iraq.

The UN did not declare war against Iraq.  Resolution 678, which the USA used
to justify its war, stated that, the UN "authorises member states ... to
(unless Iraq withdraws by January 15) use all necessary means to uphold and
implement resolution 660" (which called for Iraqi withdrawal).

There was no UN command structure, nor was the USA accountable to the UN for
their activities in the war.  When Iraq agreed to withdraw from Kuwait in
late February under terms negotiated through the USSR, the USA refused to
accept the terms and launched the ground war, despite the fact that Iraq had
by then agreed to accept UN resolution 660.

The UN Secretary-General was understandably annoyed that once the USA had
gained UN allowance for the use of force, they cut the UN out of all planning
and decision making in the conflict.  It should be noted that under the UN
charter, there is a requirement to use negotiation, mediation, arbitration,
adjudication (specifically by the World Court) to solve conflicts.  If these
fail, then other means such as an embargo can be used.  Only when these have
shown to be insufficient can force be used.

Whilst some Security Council members attempted to honour the UN charter, the
USA, it appears, had no intention to.  There is evidence that the USA was
planning war with Iraq as early as July last year. Prior to the Iraq invasion
of Kuwait, King Hussein of Jordan was told by the foreign minister of Kuwait,
Sheik Sabeh, "We are not going to respond to Iraq (which was calling for
negotiations) ...if they don't like it, let them occupy our territory ... we
are going to bring in the Americans." (New York Village Voice, March 5,
1991).

It is understandable that Robert Burrowes mistook the war as being UN led
rather than USA led, as that is the impression the USA wanted and which they
promoted in the media to justify their massacre of Iraqi people.  It is
however important for us nonviolent activists to expose and publicize the
truth, and pray that this may help towards preventing further massacres like
the Gulf War.
Alyn Ware,
Gulf Peace Team UN Representative (Jan-Mar 1991)