A Long Way To Go I was astounded! The anchor man of the A.B.C.'s "Seven Thirty Report" was interviewing Jo Vallentine and had been talking about her civil disobedience. In a supercilious, condescending voice reminiscent of a headmaster he said "Isn't that setting a bad example?" Jo smiled graciously and proceeded to say something more about civil dis-obedience. And all credit to her for that - I think I would have exploded! But I really was astounded. Here was a guy who had been presenting month after month the disintegration of Eastern Europe by civil disobedience and yet still didn't have any idea of what it was all about. The presenter in question, unlike some of his fellows on commercial TV and radio, is not a crass, aggressive, sensationalist. He is a competent, astute person who has done some excellent investigative reporting. But on this occasion he was like Alice in Wonder-land. It shows just how far we have to go. All of us, I suppose, are entitled to have bad days, and bad interviews - and he certainly had his on this occasion. A part of the problem is that people like A.B.C. presenters fail to see civil disobedience as an aspect of the growing movement of nonviolence. In recent times, in country after country, we have seen civil disobedience and people power being used as an instrument for radical change. The situation in Eastern Europe has been completely changed in this way - something that has many shaking their heads in disbelief. "Who would have thought," they say, "that the situation could change so radically without a war?" Who indeed? Only those who believe in nonviolence as a way of life, only those who consider that effective nonviolent means can be used instead of violence. Our problem is that we are so bloody minded that we don't even consider nonviolence as a viable alternative. If we spent as much time and money on the mechanism of nonviolence as we do on the mechanism of war, we would be a lot further down the road to a lasting peace. At the moment we spend two million dollars a minute on armaments - and the only real spending on nonviolence that I can quickly recall is the visit of Gene Sharp to the Baltic countries. Gene is an expert on C.B.D. (Civilian Based Defence) and was engaged as a consultant by the Baltic countries earlier this year in their journey to freedom. Few people, however, know about that. All they do is to scratch their heads in wonderment at what has happened in that part of the world. To be sure, there have been failures in people power - in China, in Burma and the West Bank - where the forces of oppression are ruthlessly crushing opposition, but one would have thought that the succession of nonviolent revolutions in Eastern Europe would have at least raised a few questions about the future of nonviolence. They don't come much worse than Ceausescu and yet, in a few short months, he became history. There were, of course casualties when the people took to the streets but nothing like there would have been had the military option been exercised. The Serbian/Croatian struggle illustrates the limitations of the military approach. I would have hoped that by now it would have been clear that armed insurrection is one of the least effective and most costly strategies in the struggle for freedom. We obviously have a long way to go. What we can be thankful for is that in the last decade we were able to hold those who wanted us to "nuke the Russkies". What a pity we weren't able to do the same with those who were determined to get rid of "the Butcher of Baghdad" and bombed Iraq back into the middle ages. A "butcher" we called him, and "butchers" we became! It is not, however, a simple choice between two options. It goes far deeper than a simple choice between violence and nonviolence. The real questions are moral ones - ones like, "To what extent am I going to be involved in the resistance movement, or will I opt out and leave the struggle to others?" These are the basic kinds of questions which have to be answered before the concept of nonviolence will come of age. And in our immoral society (and I am not talking about sex and stealing) such moral questions are difficult to raise. Most people seem to have little idea of social responsibility and have become immunised to human suffering as they sit before the little screen with their cup of tea and chocolate biscuit in hand and pontificate on what a terrible world we live in. Whilst A.B.C. presenters still talk about "setting a bad example" we obviously have a long way to go. It reminds me of a dear old soul who telephoned me during the lead up to the Gulf War and said in a voice tinged by the years, "I agree with what you are saying, Mr. Watson, but I wish you wouldn't criticise the Prime Minister. It is such a bad example to the young." I wasn't prepared to argue with her. At the cost of being called sexist and ageist, I considered that she was entitled to a quiet few years at the end of her journey. This doesn't go, however, for an A.B.C. presenter who lives and works at such momentous times in the history of the nonviolence movement. Neville Watson