Sri Lanka: The Futility of Armed Struggle

As I write this, the latest Al-Jazeera report on Sri Lanka says that 250,000 civilians are trapped by the Sri Lankan army in an area of 300 square kilometers, about the equivalent of a square 11 miles on each side. The Sri Lankan army, having routed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), known as the Tamil Tigers, and taken over most of the areas formerly controlled by them, have them cornered in this small area of jungle. But there are a quarter million civilians in that area whose lives are in the balance, and they currently have no way to get out.

Anyone wondering if armed liberation struggles might sometimes be justified should consider the history of the Tamil Tigers. Marginalized by the majority Sinhalese since Sri Lanka became independent in 1948, several Tamil groups turned to armed struggle in the 1970s. Thirty-five years and 70,000 civilian deaths later, they have little to show for it. And catastrophe looms.

Until the past few months, the Tamil Tigers presented as one of the world's most successful armed liberation struggles. According to Al-Jazeera, they had up to 10,000 fighters and a navy, controlled large portions of country that they administered with a civilian government, enjoyed support from India, had an intricate secret financial system, and were believed by some to have branches in 54 countries. They negotiated a number of cease-fires with the government of Sri Lanka, the most recent lasting several years until it collapsed in 2006. Now, their position is so hopeless that it appears that the best thing they could do for themselves and the Tamil people is surrender unconditionally in hopes of averting a disaster.

What if, instead of armed struggle, a determined nonviolent struggle had taken root among the Tamil in the 1970s? Nonviolent liberation struggle is slow and hard, but in that amount of time, significant progress can be made. Look at how far African Americans have come without armed struggle. African Americans comprise roughly the same percentage of the population in the US as the Tamil do in Sri Lanka; but the Tamil were never subjected to slavery and were never loathed as intellectually and morally inferior, the way African Americans were. The Tamil were certainly a marginalized minority and they no doubt had significant grievances. But they never were disadvantaged as a group by vast economic disparities the way African Americans still are. The Tamil started out in 1948 with disproportionately greater numbers of doctors, lawyers and other educated professionals than other groups in Sri Lanka, and they had significant support from India.

But sadly, they didn't have Martin Luther King, Jr.

And suppose the Tamil Tigers had achieved a more stable military success and had won agreement from the Sri Lankan government for a separate state in the North and East of the island. What kind of government would the Tamil have had? Well, Al-Jazeera describes the structure of the Tamil Tigers as “very hierarchical.” Both the political and military wings are said to be controlled by one individual, Vellupiali Prabhakaran, who decides all aspects of organizational policy. He is said to personally vet all candidates for the Black Tigers, the subgroup that engages in suicide bombings. If such an individual were ever to participate in any government that did not consist of despotic rule by himself, it would be a surprise.

What kind of government would Martin Luther King's movement have envisioned? Can anyone doubt that it would have been deeply committed to tolerance, justice, equality, freedom, and humanitarian values? Why does it seem that way?

READ MY LIPS: Equality, freedom, justice, love for humanity, and nonviolence go together. They cannot coexist with organized mass killing used as a tactic. They cannot coexist with any violence against people. This is the ultimate argument against the idea of violent or armed struggle against oppression. As soon as you engage in armed or violent struggle, equality, justice and freedom die. Because violence is a form of domination. It is not a form of love.

Gaza -- Whose Side Are You On?

Progressives are rightly appalled by Israel's bombing and ground invasion of the Gaza Strip. But their condemnations of Israel for the attacks are counterproductive and doomed to fall on deaf ears, because they are accepting the standard frame of events as a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. According to the progressive version of the standard frame, Israel is primarily to blame for the bloodshed because Israel has essentially all of the military power. It should use this power with “restraint” and address the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. The rocket attacks by Hamas are insufficient justification for the Israeli attacks, because they have killed so few people by comparison that Israel's response cannot legitimately be considered self defense. Makes sense, no?

No. The problem with the prevailing progressive position is that it accepts the standard frame of the conflict. The standard frame assumes that warfare is a rational and legitimate course of action for Israel if justified by a need for self-defense or security. By criticizing the Israeli attacks as disproportionate, instead of condemning acts of warfare by both sides as irrational and illegitimate, progressives accept the assumptions of the standard frame, and their position looks ridiculous and even anti-Semitic -- and persuades nobody. Progressives put themselves in the position of belittling Israel's self-defense and security rationale for their actions; when the majority of the Israeli people are certain to believe that some kind of action is absolutely necessary to put a stop to the rocket attacks by Hamas. The argument is bound to look irrational and anti-Semitic to the majority of Israelis, who identify closely with the victims of the Hamas attacks.

My friends, sending up rockets to land at random in civilian areas is murder plain and simple. The fact that “only” a handful of Israelis have been killed is irrelevant to the question of the legitimacy of the rocket attacks. Hamas would no doubt kill more Israelis if it could. The rhetoric of Hamas seems to leave little doubt that, if given the military means, it would destroy Israel and kill many of its people. Moreover, because the anti-Israeli position of Hamas appears to be supported by a few other states such as Iran, it is not ludicrous to imagine greater weapons capability coming into the hands of Hamas. The security threat faced by Israel is far greater than anything that Americans have experienced. To argue that Israel has no legitimate security concerns is to deny this reality. To accept the standard frame of the conflict, but condemn only Israel, is to appear to condone terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. In the minds of Israelis, the only explanation for anyone condoning these attacks is anti-Semitic hatred.

Because the security concerns of the Israelis are real and legitimate, accepting the standard frame should lead to support of the Israeli attacks. If warfare is a legitimate and rational means of self-defense against a real security threat, it follows that the Israeli attacks are legitimate and rational. Within the standard frame, Israel's attacks are disproportionate only if a less intensive assault would have succeeded in meeting Israel's legitimate security needs by pacifying Hamas. Since the massive bombing did not succeed in pacifying Hamas, it cannot be said to have been disproportionate within the assumptions and reasoning of the standard frame.

Of course, before progressives decide to support (or condone) the Israeli attacks, we should consider that the standard frame equally supports the rocket attacks and any other violent attacks conducted by Hamas. The Palestinians' self-defense and social justice rationales for engaging in warfare are at least as viable within the standard frame as those advanced by the Israelis. The practice of engaging in forms of warfare that will inevitably lead to civilian deaths is not morally distinct from forms of warfare used by Israel, the United States, and many other countries. Killing civilians is the standard mode of warfare. There hasn't been a war in a long time that was not primarily focused on killing civilians. Thus, the standard frame fully justifies both Israel and Hamas. The fact that the leadership and so many people on both sides accept the standard frame explains the persistence of bloodshed.

Progressives should consistently and unequivocably reject the standard frame. We should fully acknowledge Israel's security concerns and fully sympathize with their innocent victims; but deny that warfare is a legitimate or rationale means of addressing Israel's security concerns or protecting its people. We should equally support the aspirations of the Palestinian people and fully acknowledge their oppression, while utterly denying that warfare is a legitimate or rationale means of addressing those concerns. We should articulate a path to security and justice in the region that frames the conflict as a struggle between those who believe that warfare is a legitimate and rational means of advancing security and social justice concerns, and those who believe that warfare is neither legitimate nor rational. This alternative frame places Hamas and the Israeli government on the same side, the side that considers the murder of innocent civilians to be justifiable, and advances intentional mass murder as a means of obtaining peace, security and justice. The side of Insanity. The other side, the side that progressives should vigorously support with our voices and money, is the side that wholly rejects armed conflict as a means of addressing the legitimate concerns of either side. The side of Sanity. There are many Israelis and Palestinians who are on the side of Sanity. We need to identify and name them whenever we talk about events in the region. We need to be absolutely clear that we neither accept the assumptions nor condone the actions of any party on the side of Insanity. And we need to push for vigorous and intensive efforts to advance the program of Sanity in the region.

Nonviolent Communication -- It Works!

It works!

That is the important thing to keep in mind with Nonviolent Communication, the communication technique developed by Marshall Rosenberg and described in his book, “Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life.” Because chances are good that reading the book will not, by itself, convince you of the value of Rosenberg's method. But if you try it when you are faced with a difficult communication challenge, you might come to view it differently.

The method comes down to this. When expressing yourself in an emotional or challenging situation, state (1) What you observe; (2) What you are feeling; (3) What you need; and (4) What you would like the person to do. Like if somebody rudely cuts in front of you in line at the grocery store, instead of saying, “Hey, end of the line, jerk!” you might say: “When I see you moving into the line in front of me after I got here first, I feel frustrated and angry, because I need to be done with my shopping as quickly as possible; would you be willing to move to the end of the line?” When somebody communicating with you or verbally attacking you in an angry or emotionally intense manner, you listen for the person's feelings and needs, and try to identify them. Like if your spouse says, “Will you please listen to me instead of reading the damn sports page!” you might say, “I'm guessing that you're frustrated because you see me reading the sports page without giving any indication that I am listening to you; and you need to know that I understood what you just said. Will it help if I summarize what I understood you to say?”

I know what you're saying: “Oh, give me a break! That is so contrived and ridiculous! Anybody you talked to like that would immediately conclude that you're an idiot and tell you to buzz off! Or they would tell you where you can stick your manipulative rosy New Age psychobabble happy-talk! No way talking like that will get you anywhere with normal people!

But it does! If you can discipline yourself to learn it, practice it, and try it, I can almost guarantee that you will be amazed. People don't realize you are using any kind of “technique!” They really don't! I'm not saying you need to talk like this all the time. But in situations where communication is challenging, it is invaluable because it enables you to calm people down and get them to communicate with you. And in situations where you need to get a point across to sensitive people, you can let people know what you need them to do without putting them on the defensive.

By challenging situations, I mean situations like this: communicating when you or the other person are very angry or in an emotionally intense state; when the topic is sensitive or provocative; when there are social or cultural barriers that might inhibit understanding; or when you are having difficulty communicating for other reasons.

Nonviolent Communication, which is sometimes called Compassionate Communication, is similar to the “Gordon Model” popularized in the 1970s by Thomas Gordon in his book, “Parent Effectiveness Training.” The Gordon Model makes heavy use of reflective listening and I-messages; Nonviolent Communication also makes use of these, but is more specific about what should be reflected or communicated (observations, feelings, and needs), Thus, Nonviolent Communication can be thought of as a further refinement or elaboration of the Gordon Method.

I am no communications expert, but I have used elements of the Gordon Model and Nonviolent Communication occasionally for many years in working with children and adults with every imaginable cognitive and mental health challenge; in working with traumatized refugees from vastly different cultures from mine; and in high-conflict courtroom situations. When I have been able to remember to use these techniques, they have never failed. Nobody has ever reacted negatively or accused me of using contrived or artificial speech.

And don't hesitate to use Nonviolent Communication when you need it with your own kids, partner, or friends. It works!

If interested, you might check out my Mindmap of Marshall Rosenberg's book, which should work and display fine on most computers and browsers with Java enabled; or my simpler folding outline of the book, which only needs Javascript. Or check out the official website of the Center for Nonviolent Communication.

Love and Anarchy

During the Republican National Convention this year, I had the pleasure to meet and associate in some measure with some of the young people who call themselves “anarchists,” about whom the Sheriff and County Attorney of Ramsey County have been making such a fuss. In a conversation with a friend who had opened her home to several anarchist visitors for the RNC, I think we managed to identify what seemed so remarkable about them.

“They love each other,” we concluded.

They related to each other with palpable intimacy and trust, tolerance and compassion. It was a rare and beautiful thing to be see. Is this just because they were young and privileged and having a good time? Or could it be that compassionate relationships follow naturally from anarchist politics and philosophy? I think it is mostly the latter.

Anarchists resist all forms of domination and oppression. What core values and beliefs underlie this resistance? It must be, first and foremost, compassion. Without compassion, one would naturally give the well-being of oneself or one's own group priority over others. With compassion, the well-being of others acquires equal status.

Compassion leads directly to the core belief of anarchism: that people are fundamentally good by nature. Out of concern for the well-being of others, one adopts the practice of attempting to see the world as others see it. And in seeing the world as others see it, we come to believe in their core goodness, projecting our belief in our own goodness onto them.

Without the belief in human goodness, human freedom would not necessarily be a good thing. One could never risk equality. One could never give up the ultimate resort to coercive power. Some form of domination or oppression would be necessary to control an evil human nature.

The core belief in human goodness does not deny evil -- it attributes evil to coercive systems. It is not a belief that torturers are basically good or likely to become good. It's that torturers are made, not born. Eliminate domination and oppression, and you create a compassionate society with no torturers. Because for anarchists, there are no evil babies.

With the core value of compassion and the core belief in the goodness of human beings, the rest of anarchism follows quite naturally. Compassion creates the desire for maximum well-being for all, no exceptions. And human goodness finds expression through maximum freedom and equality.

Most people find anarchism hard to accept because they don't trust that well-being will be promoted by human freedom. Because of this, they believe that some systematic form of domination or coercion is necessary. In fact, many people have a core belief that human beings are fundamentally evil and that every human activity must be embedded in some coercive system to force people to behave in a way that does not harm others. Many others have a core belief that while some people, namely themselves and the group they identify with, are good, others are bad. Coercion is necessary to keep the bad people under control. Since bad people are fundamentally bad by nature, all means of domination and oppression, including organized mass murder (warfare), torture, and police violence are fully justified. The belief that people are fundamentally good is seen as hopelessly naive. But I believe that this dark view of human nature is doomed.

The reason the dark view of human nature is doomed is because we will never be satisfied with its fruits. As long a we live in a world characterized by domination and oppression, we will yearn to be free. We will never be satisfied with barriers between people erected out of fear and distrust. We will always yearn for love and intimacy and trust and we will always seek other people to build communities of compassion and equality.

People like the anarchist young people who descended on our town during the RNC, burning with a compassionate vision of freedom and justice for all, and whom the doomed and desperate forces of darkness call “terrorists.”

Anarchism and Violence -- An Inherent Contradiction

A recent article on the CommonDreams.org website cited researchers that claim that a survey of nonviolent and violent movements shows that nonviolence “works” better than violence. The article touched off some commentary, most of which consisted of ridicule directed at pacifism from so-called radicals. Nothing new: the usual claims that nonviolence doesn't work; that it is nothing but elitist, passive, self-indulgent religiousity. But delivered with more vitriol than ever, with fewer defenders of nonviolence speaking up than one would hope to see in a world where, last time I looked, there is already plenty of violence going around doing all the wonderful things it does.

I am uncomfortable with claims that nonviolence “works.” Even putting aside the difficulty of defining “nonviolence,” I cannot see how such a claim can be proven or disproven. Most incidents of fundamental change in society follow from a fantastically complex web of events and conditions , including uncountable actions and reactions of which the real intent and effect is unknowable, even to the actors. I predict that the debate over whether nonviolent or violent tactics are more instrumental in a social change movement will go on indefinitely without getting anywhere. And the whole debate misses the point.

The main reason for avoiding violence in working for freedom and justice is that violence, defined as deliberately harming or threatening to harm people, violates basic principles of freedom and justice. Violence is domination by force. It cannot be instrumental in opposing domination and hierarchy because it imposes ultimate domination and hierarchy. It cannot bring about justice because it is itself the ultimate injustice.

Common sense tells us that you don't try to bring about certain conditions by means that maximally violate those same conditions. For example, anarchist groups generally try to be non-hierarchical, non-racist, and non-sexist. They don't consider whether creating a rigidly hierarchical, racist, or sexist process or organization might “work” better in the interim to ultimately bring about a non-hierarchical, non-racist, and non-sexist society. That would be to impose an inherent contradiction.

If forms of domination are unacceptable in the society we are trying to build, those forms are unacceptable right now in our anarchist community. If we ever were to decide that a form of domination is acceptable because it somehow “works,” we would never abandon it, because it would always “work” for whatever we are trying to get done.

If a member of our anarchist community thinks violence “works,” what's to stop him or her from just bringing a gun to the next meeting and shooting anybody who disagrees? Obviously, the criterion that should be applied is not whether it “works.” Violence is an inherent contradiction of anarchist principles.

At risk of being ridiculed as “religious,” I would also add that in my view, violence is simply immoral. It is immoral because it intentionally causes suffering, and the most fundamental moral imperative is to reduce suffering. It is because freedom, justice and equality for all would reduce suffering that anarchists dedicate themselves to working for these things. Any complicity whatsoever with any violent tactic or practice undermines this moral foundation, just as complicity with racism, sexism, or forms of domination would do the same. Anarchists and others who wish to bring about a better world must be very clear in their opposition to violent tactics or practices.