Cooperation Times
Volume 15, No. 5 ~ Oct.-Nov. 2001

• Alternatives to War: Past and Present

• The Current Crisis and Peace: What do need to for the 21st Century?

• September 11 Statement

• Mike Farrell Speaks out Against the Death Penalty

• Boys and TV Violence

Alternatives to War: Past and Present
by Rachel Waltner Goossen

A cartoon by Jeff Stahler of the Cincinnati Post, which appeared widely in syndication during the week following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, showed a young boy sitting in front of the television with his father, asking plaintively, "Will we hate back?" On the couch beside the father and son was a daily newspaper headlined "Act of War..."

The child’s question resonates with readers on a number of levels, including psychologically, as we try to come to terms with the jumble of emotions—anger, sadness, fear—that have beset us since those horrible images of destruction and disregard for life came our way on September 11. We here in Topeka, like Americans everywhere, are suddenly trying to understand terrorism and are wondering, "Will we hate back?" We are also thinking about this question in political terms, trying to grasp the possible implications of the U.S. government’s responses to these acts.

Despite Americans’ love for peace and security, our 225-year history as a nation has been marked repeatedly by episodes of crisis and violent response. We are surely aware of the violence of the 19th century: the war with Mexico, westward expansion, and the many Indian wars that attempted to settle disputes over control of territory and natural resources; the Civil War with its lingering divisiveness, and late in the 19th century, the Spanish-American War with its huge impact on the United States’ perception of its own expanding role around the world. The twentieth century, in many ways, was even more violent, with the U.S. involving itself (sometimes reluctantly, sometimes not) in World War I, World War II, in the Korean War, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, and other armed conflicts.

Throughout this history, from the nation’s beginnings up to the present, there have been people who have looked for, and attempted to practice, nonviolent alternatives to war. The search for peaceful alternatives to military action in times of conflict has a long tradition in this country, although it is a quest that has often not been visible, celebrated, or even very successful.

Presently, our national leaders are aiming to respond to terrorist attacks upon our country: Americans are waiting to see what will happen in the coming weeks and months. Even though President Bush has described publicly a broad outline for what he terms a "war on terrorism," it remains to be seen how our military will function. The president has also warned that as a "war," this effort is not likely to resemble past wars with which we are familiar.

Although the tradition of advocating alternatives to violence in this country is a long one, it has been difficult in these weeks since the terrorist attacks for concerned individuals to know how to respond to this "war" that is still being formulated by our national leaders, in the press, and in the popular imagination.

Why has it been difficult for concerned people to speak out? The magnitude of the events on September 11 stunned nearly everyone. In the first days after the attacks people have wanted to remember the victims and their families, to support the heroic efforts of rescue workers, and to come together in ceremonies and conversations of mourning, grief, and resolve. And yet, there are a number of individuals and organizations—with varying histories and perspectives—among the voices now emerging speaking of justice and peace, rather than calling for war.

Those who are seeking alternatives to violence are among the many Americans who have articulated the idea that the U.S.’s response needs to be reasoned and cautious, rather than immediate and bent on vengeance. Those who are seeking alternatives to violence are encouraging the United States to be fair and non-retaliatory toward Afghans in particular, and Muslims and Arabs generally.

Those who are seeking alternatives to violence tend to frame the needed response in terms of "doing justice," not "waging war." The difference is not just one of semantics; for these terms suggest different paths. The term "justice" suggests that the U.S. utilize international law and judicial procedures, including due process, to bring the perpetrators of these hate crimes to accountability for their actions. Doing that, with the cooperation and support of many nations around the world, the U.S. can plausibly hope to improve its relations with many people, Muslims and others, rather than destabilizing already fragile and tense relationships across national, geographic, and religious boundaries.

Those who are seeking alternatives to violence will likely increase their efforts to mount a visible witness against broad-scale military actions. We can expect this, and should welcome it in a society in which peaceful dissent against war has long been a hallmark. Bearing witness for peace is a tradition that encompasses Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, among many notable shapers of our history and culture. On September 20, for example, student–led peace rallies took place in front of Wescoe Hall at the University of Kansas and at South Park in Lawrence. As the world crisis plays out, there will be more peace vigils and demonstrations in our state and nation, and internationally, as people act on their convictions that meeting terrorist violence with more violence could actually worsen the situation, destabilize other countries, and further undermine Americans’ own security.

Those who are seeking alternatives to violence, I believe, are generally supportive of many of the U.S. government initiatives underway for responding to these attacks, including the use of diplomatic and intelligence sources to amass evidence.

Those who are seeking alternatives to violence will insist on upholding the human rights of people throughout the world, including innocent civilian populations in countries in where terrorists move and reside.

Finally, in many quarters, those who are seeking alternatives to violence will work to capitalize on the momentum of goodwill of people in Arab countries and elsewhere. Influential people the world over, who are not Americans, are sympathetic to our country in the aftermath of these attacks. They too want to see a course of justice proceed. There is a high interest globally in bringing to bear multiple kinds of pressures upon terrorism, including financial pressure and moral suasion. Our country, one can hope, will move in the direction of taking advantage of these expressions of goodwill. For it is in utilizing such actions, rather than pursuing broad-scale military operations, that may, in the long run, contribute most decisively to a world characterized by peace, justice, and security.

(Rachel Waltner Goossen teaches history at Washburn University. This article was derived from her presentation at Responding to Terrorism: A Teach-In at Washburn University on September 24, 2001.)

[back to top]

The Current Crisis and Peace: What do we need to do for the the 21st Century?
by Chris Hamilton

The terrible agony of September 11 should tell us this: no simple solution will solve this terrible, complex problem. Not simple militarism, and not simple nonviolence. But there is a Light in this dark tunnel. What should we do to prevent such horrors, and reverse this new global violence? There is a complex morality, and solutions that are able to deal with this terrible, complex dilemma.

It is remarkable that the Voices of the Arab and the European worlds speak the same solutions as the Voice of the Morality of International Justice and Peace to Americans at this perilous turning point.

The Arab Voice simply says, there must not be or appear to be a war on Islam or Islamic states and that any coalition strategy will require a major American shift toward a United Nations led multilateral approach to resolving Arab World and Western World relations—not limited only to the Israeli-Palestinian disputes. Without a U.S. yes on this Egypt will likely pull out from any coalition in the end. Even worse, Egypt is under pressure to consider withdrawing from the Israeli/Egypt Camp David Treaty in medium-sized steps. This alone would escalate the terrorist attacks on Israel, reescalate radical Palestinian attacks, heat up the war inside Israel, and threaten to spread war throughout the region. The U.S. can’t really say no to all this.

The European Voice agrees, and adds that the U.S. must arrive at committed support of the Nonproliferation treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (if not the drop the Missile Defense idea) and other U.N. or joint initiatives. What would we gain from agreeing to a moderate middle ground of these changes? First, we would remove the soil from which the terrorist organizations grow. An improved climate of Middle East regional relations, a reduction of terrorism, and a limit to weapons proliferation would all result. What a great swap this would be. We would have to begin to regularly engage the Islamic Conference in regional approaches to trade and conflict issues (Restorative Regional Justice). If we ignore these voices, we will lose, a lot.

The Voice of the Morality of international justice and peace agrees, and is found in several of the less noticed peace religions. It is the voice of a few growing traditions in Christianity—the 2001 Methodist Book of Discipline (www.umc.org/abouttheumc, click on "Our Policy Statements," then "Political Community," then "World"), and the lesser known peace statements of the Community of Christ, or RLDS (www.cofchrist.org, click on "Who We Are," "Committees," "World Peace Committee"). It is also strongly stated in the elaborate, and older Baha’i Scriptures on world justice and peace. (www.us.bahai.org, click on "External Affairs," "Human Rights," "The Promise of World Peace," or read Peace: More than an End to War, ISBN 087743204).

Peace is not just the absence of war, or the restraint of evil to protect the innocent; and of course, nonviolence strategies are a part of the solution. But these are not sufficient by themselves to build Stable Peace zones in the world.

From the three cited peace religions, the Morality Voice of international justice and peace says that peace ethics must be tailored and appropriate to the differences of all levels of human existence. It also says humans need to regrow relations of Restorative Justice and global law and institutions. This will eventually help grow harmonious relationships at all levels of human existence, including regional and international levels. (Restorative justice results from using kindness and nonviolence, until dialogues begin that lead to consensus between victims and oppressors sufficient redress significant imbalances. A justice that restores harmonious relations among groups).

Also in this new strategy it is imperative to pursue the moral prerequisites to peace which are those of Restorative Justice first: we must establish equality between women and men, reduce imbalances of wealth, reduce imbalances in foreign policies, and be conscious of our oneness. And also, these must be built alongside the Morality Voice of international behavior which is: eliminate exploitation, support true U.N.–style collective security, collaborate to reach regional agreements on resource use conflicts, and respect and use international law and governance.

Thus the new Morality of International Relations calls for similar changes as the Arab and European worlds call for, but as moral requirements. The new International Morality is a bit like Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock's old three dimensional chess game....we have to behave morally on different levels.

It must be understood that all of the above are moral requirements for international behavior, and the true Islamic Arabs and Europeans are calling for essentially the same things.

Now there are items from the old morality we need to insist on. We need to insist on the temporary interdiction or restraint of terrorist evil against innocent civilians. And if using just war limited violence to capture or eliminate the worst terrorists is the only short-term option, then the only moral choice is to pursue interdiction through collective security means. We also need to engage nonviolently those inside our countries who are militaristic, to reduce the risk of carnage. And we need massive aide to the innocent civilian refugees.

But this old morality is not sufficient. It is not morally good enough to be against violence, and then find it infeasible to engage a violent opponent who is nowhere nearby. It is not quite moral enough to just reach for nonviolence strategies designed 50 years ago to change democratic nation-states, when the weapons of war have now trickled down to a narrow batch of non-state, far away, genocidal minds. This is a new violence, requiring a new morality.

The new morality says that individuals should assist this long road to restorative justice and peace in numerous ways.

We can start by asking ourselves about our own consciousness, and our true personal associations: 1. Do we have a "one world" consciousness—or is our neighbor only our new suffering immigrant laborer? 2. Is our community and our friends from only our tradition, or from the larger multinational world we live in? Do we experience Sunday, as Corretta Scott King has said as our most segregated day of the week? 3. How do we live our lives in the presence of others during the rest of the week—who are not of our religion, not of our own ethnic background?

4. Do we really concern ourselves to seek a one-world long–term peace through multinational education—of ourselves, our children? 5. Do we try to understand world issues and policies—as much as we do for poverty in our midst? 6. Is "love our neighbor" only for the one in our city? Is the "neighbor" we need to understand somewhere in Iran, Egypt, or Pakistan? 7. Are we really out to build understanding, justice relationships, and eventually peace across the world—as well as at home? 8. When was the last time we insisted on more multinational (not just American multicultural) education in our schools? 9. Do we make it a priority to push our nation–states into multilateral justice and peace initiatives, moving toward collective justice and then eventually building towards collective peace?

If we aren’t answering these questions too well, then we might need a new sort of thinking about how to build justice and peace relations in the shrinking world we live in.

We have the 21st century before us......Let us study justice and peace some more. All of us. Together.

(Chris Hamilton, Ph.D., is the Chair of the Political Science Department at Washburn University.)

[back to top]

(This statement was originally published as a letter-to-the-editor in the Topeka Capital Journal on September 24, 2001, page 3.)

[back to top]

Mike Farrell speaks out Against the Death Penalty 
Saturday, November 10, 7:30 p.m. at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, 4774 SW 21st St., Topeka

Mike Farrell, TV star of M*A*S*H and Providence, is a longtime opponent of the death penalty. He is being hosted in Kansas by the Kansas Coalition Against the Death Penalty. He is the current president of Death Penalty Focus of California. For more information, call 785-234-3061.

[back to top]

Boys and TV Violence
October 18, 7:00 p.m., Washburn University, Henderson Room 112

Bring your questions and listen to Dr. John Murray of Kansas State University describe his research regarding the effects of violent media images on children. He is a professor of developmental psychology and has studied this topic for 30 years. The CENTER presents this program as part of the YWCA's Week Without Violence.

[back to top]