Outline

Whence the Threat?
Global Threats, Global Solutions
Nonviolent Approaches
Divergent Approaches
The Druze of the Golan Heights
Let's Get Started!
 
 
 
 
 

(to outline)  (to top of page)

Whence the Threat?

In North America in 2002 the notion is becoming more and more firmly established that the overwhelmingly destructive, invisible bête noire of terrorism has successfully supplanted the Evil Empire as the omnipresent evil necessitating our great protectors in Washington. I’d like to address the question of how a stateless "nation" might protect itself against terrorists. To take, for example, the threatening organization currently occupying the media of North America—Would al-Qaida wish to terrorize a stateless region? Most anarcho-capitalists and (small "l") libertarians would think this about as likely as angry Arabs crashing hijacked planes into Somalia, Sealand or Antarctica—or into non-threatening states such as New Zealand, Switzerland or Finland, for that matter.

Terrorist threats from animal rights, neo-Luddite and pro-choice groups certainly seem possible in a free, stateless nation. However, these groups tend to target very specific businesses and individuals. As such, I think, they generally do not strike fear in the hearts of millions. So from where might the greatest terrorist threats come? And how might individuals in a free nation make preparations to protect themselves?

A recent book discussing attempts of UN and other international bodies to define terrorism runs 1,866 pages devoid of any firm conclusion. The definition of terrorism preferred by the US state department circumscribes terrorism as acts committed ONLY by non-governments. I prefer the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition "government by intimidation." The use of "terrorist" in an anti-government sense is not recorded until 1866 (referring to Ireland) and 1883 (referring to Russia).

The stated purpose of al-Qaida’s killing of innocent noncombatants is to stop acts of terror of the US government such as the medieval siege of Iraq, extralegal killings of Palestinians, and US soldiers protecting a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

The stated purpose of the US government’s killing of innocent noncombatants is to stop acts of terror by various organizations.

A reading of postings at the Awdal newsgroup at Yahoogroups.com suggests the fear in the stateless region of Somalia is not of the prospect of angry Arabs launching suicidal missions against this nation, but rather killing of innocents by the world’s most interventionist military superpower, the United States government. It seems plausible that any peaceful, stateless region could face a potential, massive threat from this same source—particularly since the US government could further offer the inevitable excuse of their other "war," drug dealers. Further, the American president has proclaimed from high, "you’re either for us or you’re against us." It seems clear that a stateless region cannot be, officially, "for them."

The military might of the United States is a terrifying force. The question, I believe, that must be addressed is what is the most effective and practical response to Washingtonians, in supple armchairs, launching years of air strikes, if not immediate massive annihilation. So overwhelming are the resources of death at the fingertips of American leaders, I do not believe it is a practical, prudent or possible course for a free nation to plan to meet its violence in kind. Like a penniless poker player, a young, free nation could probably not withstand its share of an escalating cycle of violence. There is even a good argument to be made that violent resistance to the US government’s policies strengthens the government, providing the opportunity for it to assume new powers offering more "protection" services to those who give it support.

In 1968, invading Soviet troops were met with Czechs who refused to obey their orders. The Czechs simultaneously attempted to befriend, difficult as it was, and fraternize with the Soviet troops. This peaceful, nonviolent response so challenged the invaders it took five hundred thousand soldiers eight months to gain control of the country. Twenty-one years later the "Velvet Revolution" of the Czechoslovakians succeeded in a relatively peaceful liberation from their totalitarian dictator. Essentially, these same tactics worked for the East Germans and the "People Power" of the Filipinos.

(to outline)  (to top of page)

Global Threats, Global Solutions

As September 11, 2001 has shown us, increasingly the theaters of war for military conflicts are transnational and non-territorial. The approach of "taking the war to the enemy" long employed by the United States government, the Israeli government, al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations can be employed by nonviolent defenders as well.

Technologies such as the Internet are helping to build communities whose members have ideas, principles and dreams more in common than genes, longitude or latitude. Without even trying, we are rapidly building networks of caring, intelligent, like minds. This is the key to the defense of a non-territorial nation. Just as terrorists threats can be encouraged to spontaneously burst into life anywhere on the globe, decentralized, spontaneous peaceful defenses for a given stateless territory can burst into life at any given spot on the globe from among the networks of like-minded, peaceful individuals. The global approach taken by military aggressors can be taken by the forces of peace, love and creativity.

In 1517, Martin Luther (the original) wrote his grievances against the power structure with a quill. Weeks later high-tech German entrepreneurs were selling typeset copies. This meme-replication technology produced self-organized masses that astonished even Luther.

Of course not all individuals, groups or virtual states within a region unburdened by a traditional, territorially monopolistic state will respond in the same manner. Nonviolent response to a militaristic superpower is my personal choice. Others may well choose to respond in a way more in keeping with their own values.

(to outline)  (to top of page)

Nonviolent Approaches

Political regimes, like other terrorist networks, are empowered by and constituted from decentralized resources such as belief in their legitimacy and other ideologies. This structure can be shaken by committed supporters of liberation painting a human picture of the invader’s enemies. In other words, the key to nonviolent resistance is reversing the dehumanized caricature often created by Big Government and their courtesans Big Media. This power structure can be weakened by the erosion of active citizen support for its policies. Its positions can be immediately reversed with application of enough "heat."

Compared with traditional warfare operations, non-military types such as the elderly, children, and handicapped individuals can participate effectively and at lower personal cost in nonviolent defense. The following list is only a beginning to what I hope will be an ongoing lengthy brainstorm on nonviolent responses to superpower government military aggressions.

1. Internet

a. Newsgroups
b. Web pages
c. News outlets
d. Alternative media
e. Petitions

3. Public demonstrations in the interventionist military-power nation

a. Student protests and strikes
b. Public speeches
c. Vigils
d. Guerrilla theater
e. Consumer boycotts
f. Draft resistance
g. Tax resistance

a. Soldiers
b. Soldiers’ families, churches, clubs
c. Voters
d. Politicians. Even some politicians will listen to some citizens, former citizens, tourists to the region, et al.
e. Media
f. Celebrities

a. Sit-ins
b. Occupying or surrounding government buildings
c. Blocking roads
d. Overloading government computer web pages and resources
e. Fasting
f. Hunger strikes. Surely more politically effective by a respected former American citizen than, say, an Afghan.

a. Internet-based
b. Marble and bronze memorials and shrines at sites of government violence to individuals seeking liberation. The Czechs and Slovaks (I’ve some Slovakian ancestry) built such shrines to those injured by statists. (communists) Beautiful, inspirational expressions, I believe, to heroes of liberation who’ve faced down tyrants.
c. Film
d. Print

8. Send delegations to nations around the world

A credible nonviolent defense system no doubt requires as much care with creation as any other defense system: strategy, financing, courage, preparation, volunteers, weapons testing, study of past conflicts, leaders, and public support for the myth of the heroic participation. Many of the "preparations" can be started now. Contacts can be made and strengthened. Relationships can be built now.

(to outline)  (to top of page)

Divergent Approaches

The self-organization of groups, virtual states and protection corporations will pave the way to a new kind of international diplomacy—one more akin to building allies among internal factions than to the tête-à-têtes of kings.

One voluntary virtual state might be willing to certify its properties drug-free or al-Qaida-free. A virtual state might choose the nonviolent route. If, say, 40% of the individuals in a stateless region chose this route they could pursue the nonviolent struggle with the superpower government independently, with or without a contiguous territory. The most salient difference between a virtual state and a traditional, territorially monopolistic state would be the voluntary characteristic of its "citizens" and therefore its fluid, non-contiguous borders. It would be absolutely incumbent upon a virtual state to keep a published map of its borders immediately available at all times. I think the only way this could be practically accomplished is by an online updated-in-real-time map of the borders of the properties of the members of the virtual state.

(to outline)  (to top of page)

The Druze of the Golan Heights

Most of the native population fled after Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967. Five villages of Druze, an Islamic sect and ethnic group, remained. The Israelis began gradually annexing the territory and pressuring the population to accept Israeli identification cards. The Druze resisted and responded with a nonviolent campaign that included a general strike, peaceful demonstrations and curfew violations. They ignored military restrictions against public demonstrations. Children and adults eagerly sought arrest. Many engaged in a "reverse strike," defiantly installing a sewer pipeline that the occupation forces had refused to support.

In spite of 15,000 Israeli troops occupying the Golan, and a 43-day state of siege, destroyed homes, hundreds of arrests and gunned-down suspects, the Israelis finally ended their insistence that the Druze accept Israeli citizenship. They even promised not to conscript Druze into the army, to allow them to open economic relations with their fellow Syrians across the armistice line, and to stop interfering with Druze civil, water and land rights. When the Israelis refused to live up to these promises, mass protests and civil disobedience resumed.

The resistance forced the Israelis to compromise further. Palestinian attorney Jonathan Kuttab observed, "The [Israeli] soldiers were really being torn apart, because they couldn’t handle that type of nonviolence." American peace activist Scott Kennedy quoted an Israeli division commander’s complaint that the Golan situation was "ruining some of his best soldiers."

(to outline)  (to top of page)

Let’s Get Started!

As we formulate the creation of a society without a monopolistic government, how might we plan and act now to lessen the likelihood or impact of military actions that may be directed against us or those who follow in our footsteps?

We can build alliances with other individuals and groups that can support us in the future. Hundreds of thousands of African-Americans supported the dream of Marcus Garvey, even if they personally were not interested in accompanying him back to the continent. Zionists all over the world supported the goal of Jews establishing a state in Palestine. We can build alliances, formal and informal, and we can do it in the open.

Frank Morales, an Episcopal priest, visited the World Trade Center in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy there. He said the firefighters expressed no desire for revenge. "Hey, Father," they said, "tell them out there that they should organize buses for people to come through here. Everyone should see this." They told me that everyone should get this inoculation against the sheep-like murderous idiocy that was rising like the smoky spirits of the dead from the ruins in front of me. Morales said, "one loses the ability to replicate the violence, loses the desire to duplicate that which one becomes akin to: the murder of innocent people."

Nonviolent response is not about disarmament. It is about transarmament: finding tools to add to, and in some cases replace, our traditional defensive armaments of lead and steel. Ownership of defensive weapons in the manner of the Swiss militia may always find a useful place in our tools of defense. However, I think it possible that many of the past’s great battles of liberation could never have been won in the absence of nonviolent activism, with or without the sword. D
 
 

Robert Mihaly and his wife, Tina are sculptors building a castle on a mountaintop in Rougemont, North Carolina.  They have 16, he thinks, pet beasts ranging from llamas, miniature horses, pygmy goats, miniature pigs, Siamese cats, dogs, etc.
 
 

(to table of contents of archives) (to outline)  (to top of page)