Nonviolent Struggle and Destructive Actions: Means and End 

by Wim Robben

Editor’s Note: This unpublished paper was presented at the WRI’s 20th Triennial Conference, Workgroup for Peace, 20 July 1991. The theme of the conference was “Peace on the Move, but in What Direction?” JG

For many years a meaty discussion on the use of violence in the struggle of "liberation movements" has been going on among organizations like War Resisters' International (WRI). However much anti-militarists, pacifists and nonviolent activists felt (and are still feeling) a great affinity with the aims of many liberation movements, they could (and can) feel quite comfortable with the humanitarian and nonviolent means of these movements, but not with the violent means. There was always some sympathy for the fact that at a certain moment some liberation movements decided to wage their battles with means that were at least partially violent. But if based of the principles, strategy and tactics of nonviolent struggle attempts were made to find nonviolent alternatives, the use of violence can be neither supported nor applauded. This particular standpoint was also taken by the WRI, as in their declaration "Nonviolence and Armed Struggle". 

People and groups can often appreciate each other as far as "ultimate goals" are concerned; concerning "means being used"; the way in which the objective must be realized, things prove to be much more difficult. Yet almost everybody approves of their own means, even if this involves destruction and violence, as long as these means are used for the realization of their own goals, but as soon as such means are being used by the opposition, which attaches greater importance to different interests, they disapprove.

Nonviolent Struggle and Destruction of Property 

In the last few years a new difference of opinion has arisen in connection with actions in which destruction plays an (important) part. In the Netherlands the discussion got started when on January 1, 1989, some activists (including the former army chaplain Kees Koning), inspired by the actions of the Berrigans in the United States, tried to damage some NF5-jetfighters (which the Dutch government wanted to sell to Turkey) on the military air-base in Woensdrecht by hammering away at the planes with heavy sledge-hammers. In point of fact, only Kees Koning's axe-hammer hit the fuselage of one of the planes and produced a small dent in the metal, and the handle immediately broke in two, whatever the symbolism, and The Dutch Minister of Defense at once promised millions of guilders to improve the protection of the military air-bases in the Netherlands. One of the most influential newspapers in the Netherlands devoted a whole page to the action on January 7, 1989, and the otherwise sympathetic journalist wrote: "It is all over with the nonviolence of the Dutch peace-activists . . . Lately they have been venting their feelings of disgust in a violent manner on jetfighters and nuclear bomb shelters." This point of view was common among most Dutch.

For "peace activists" in the Netherlands this was one of the first actions during which 'destruction' was one of the objectives. Before that anti-car activists had already damaged cars; anti-fur activists had created havoc on furriers' stores; anti-apartheid activists had set fire to commercial properties owned by companies doing business with South Africa causing devastation at petrol stations. All of these small scale and large scale acts of destruction held to a basic assumption, that there should be no casualties as a result of the action.

In large sections of the Dutch population these acts provoked general disapproval, while the various movements for peace, environment, animal protection and anti-apartheid respectively hastened to condemn destruction-oriented means in order to attain a specific goal, such as the fight against armament, pollution, cruelty to animals and apartheid respectively).

Escalation

In August 1990 I read a letter written by Helen Woodson. She had been given a long prison sentence because in 1984 she and several others had used a pneumatic drill to damage the steel rails of a rocket-installation used to unfasten the lid of a missile silo. From prison she had written a letter in which she stated: 

Military bases with real weapon systems, and factories producing weapons and poisonous chemicals or other products whose by-products are a danger to the environment or to human health, are by no means symbolic. They are incontrovertible and hard facts and they deserve to be treated as such so: cause as much damage to them as possible . . . I shall blow up rocket launchers, put machines in factories out of order, destroy transport systems . . . During our rocket-silo-action in 1984 we combined maximum damage with a form of openness (talking to the people, to the police, to the judges). I would never do this again. In the future I will go from one place to the other, destroying everything as thoroughly as possible before moving on . . . But it seems as if we always want to protect our enemies; military people, industrial personnel, police, judges, guards, and so on . . . I repeat that we are the only ones who can tell them that we are aware of what they (industrialists, soldiers, judges, prison-guards) are doing. It is up to us to show them that there is another way and to invite them to follow it.”

Helen Woodson's letter, containing these views and ideas, was introduced as a source of inspiration for a day to be organized around the topic of "Spirituality and Nonviolence". A preparatory group, made up of three persons (having quite a bit of sympathy with the Berrigans’ Ploughshares movement), referred to this letter with obvious enthusiasm in the following terms as “an excellent starting-point for (the day to be organized) for writing down a prophetic testimony. Is what Helen is doing prophetic, and are we ourselves not prophetic enough?" (Helen Woodson's letter was also printed in the Ploughshares’ magazine in the Netherlands, De Omsmeder (The Re-forger), Number 10, winter 1990.) I really wonder whether an appeal to people to bring about large-scale destruction (just about all of our manufactured products are a threat to our environment or to human health) and a world-wide attitude of hostility towards all those (billions of) fellow-beings who have made (partially) different choices, is prophetic, if prophetic were to equal divine revelation. 

While I was reading Helen Woodson's letter, the Gulf conflict had flared up with great fierceness. Every day I was hearing the same kind of "war-talk" from the lips of George Bush and Saddam Hussein. "We are living in the age of destruction . . . with God on our side" were the words sung by the protest-singers in the sixties! However: everybody is totally convinced that all those different forms of "destruction" are necessary, unavoidable, and justified. The "sacred books" are turned to as books of reference to support the methods that are being employed, and before they start their destructive acts, all of them observe their particular kind of worship to beg for "God's blessing" and to put their minds at rest.

Means and End 

It might be that as a historian and practically-oriented peace-activist I am too level-headed to get all steamed-up over "the war that is supposed to end all wars"; over "the destruction that has to put a stop to destruction (or to the instruments of destruction)"; over the "destruction of the factories that are a threat to our environment". What it all amounts to is the philosophy of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", in various shapes and forms. 

I simply don't believe in activities which we abhor as soon as they are adopted by other people, with different ideas or interests, while at the same time we approve of them if we pursue them ourselves. Killing = killing; destruction = destruction; damage = damage. The "most splendid purpose" we say we have in mind when we are doing all this does not make any difference at all. At the very most it is an excuse which enables us to find a way out of our lack of power and/or frustrations. Would we ever resort "to destroying things" if we were aware of different models which would be very effective in bringing about constructive reforms?

Certainly: within the philosophy of violence "killing/destruction/damage" is called both violent (if the opposition is doing it) and not violent (if you are doing it yourself), because the end is "justified" by the "means". Moreover, you have to accomplish a "divine mission", and "God's wrath" is not to be sneezed at; that is what the "sacred books" tell us (and they are written by "prophetic people", aren't they?).

In the philosophy of nonviolence the end never justifies the means/the method, but the means immediately shows us the end as well, right through all the noble and sacred sayings; moreover, sincere attempts are made to find those means and methods which stay away from any form of "killing/destruction/damage". The means are completely free of any attempt or intention "to kill and to destroy". People who try to develop "that means" and to give shape to it, also try to get freed from killing and destruction.

Being blinded and stunned by the urgency of the situation and of the aim we are trying to achieve, we partially adopt the very means we sincerely want to fight against. "Let us first and foremost worry about our means and methods; the end will certainly take care of itself", M.K. Gandhi wrote one day. "The means shows us our own selves", I would like to add.

Contemplation 

The issue of "destruction" requires from us a serious act of contemplation on our way of acting and campaigning as nonviolent activists. Declaring "matter" we do not like (often with good reason) as "non-matter" which has to be "re-forged" into something good by means of hammers and fire, really means that we are making fools of ourselves. People, animals and herbs we don't like are pronounced to be non-people (brutes), non-animals (beasts) and non-herbs (weeds), and in this way are outlawed, so that we can solve or tackle problems, caused by some people/animals/herbs, by "killing and destroying" them. In order to explain our negative behavior we have invented all kinds of alibis to ease our consciences and to legalize our actions. 

Yet I am convinced that ultimately we cannot get around this contemplation
with regard to "destruction". And it isn't any use either being just furious, be
cause I am trying to make certain issues debatable; or tearing up the paper this
is written on, or arguing that activists have far more useful things to do than
talking about all this; or reproaching me for not taking part in protest-actions
as much as 1 should, or stating that you don't want to have anything to do with
me any more as happened with some people when (in my letter of February 1, 1989) I expressed my concern about "peace-activists who want to attack
the militaristic world-monster by the use of axe and bible."

This contemplation will, for one thing, lead us into our innermost being (so that we can have a serious look at the ability/the desire/the casualness, which makes us resort to "destruction" and to "remelt" all this so that we can feel and act creatively, positively and vigorously 	 if we sincerely want that). On the other hand, this contemplation will lead us all the way to the top (in order to develop optimal creativity 	 and the most positive and constructive means and methods which will be increasingly free from "destruction").

Nonviolence 

While talking about nonviolence the question propped up: "Who exactly determines what nonviolence is?" I think that nobody can really determine this, but I am sure that a certain amount of agreement has been reached about what is more or less nonviolent. Certain basic assumptions have been formulated, like: what I am doing can never be done at the expense of others or of my inner self; the nonviolent objective should be recognizable in the means; constructive efforts are made to find solutions that are beneficial to everybody; etc. Proceeding from a principled preference for nonviolence it is assumed that you should manage to obtain the support of your fellow-beings and to reach or win their heart. Proceeding from a pragmatic (strategic) preference for nonviolence it is assumed that you should manage to gain the support of large sections of the population, because they can change the political policy. Proceeding from an instrumental (tactical) preference for nonviolence it is assumed that these two (principled and pragmatic) preferences should be combined in order to realize the most effective result.

But laying about things with hammer and axe, flinging blood around or setting the whole place on fire arouses neither the support of large sections of the population nor the heart of the individual. At the very most it will gain the support of some individuals who look upon "the objective" as being something very good or the activists as being so courageous.

The oppressors, often the authorities and the business community, play along very nicely with the broad aversion in the society to this kind of destructive
actions and love to exaggerate the damage that is supposed to be done at the tax-payer's or the consumer's expense. The activists are treated like criminals and thrown into jail; they have achieved the opposite of what they had in mind, because the "damaged party" can point out the activists' "vile methods". For obvious reasons most infiltrators, of the Dutch Internal Security Service, tried to goad the peace activists into committing destructive actions. A more effective weapon against the peace movement, and the imputation of its endeavors, is hard to think of; and the most important reason for this effectiveness is that the peace movement becomes internally divided against itself. In The Netherlands the axe, wielded by Kees Koning, has resulted in substantial rifts in peace organizations; the (controversial) delivery of military planes to Turkey became such a matter of prestige to the Dutch government that they had to see it through; and the army emerged from all this as a stronger (more inviolable) force. Or: the axe came down on the peace movement; the army was the laughing party.

Destructive actions are basically, strategically and tactically unwise. They arouse the aversion of most people to the peace movement and by no means contribute to a change in vision and political policy. It does not bring the mentality of the person who is willing to produce and use instruments of destruction under discussion, but it only affirms this mentality. It is rather a primitive, not very uplifting, imitation of the military way of dealing with problems and conflicts. An escalation, into negative, is part of all this. What started with "the Berrigan brothers hammering away on bombs" has degenerated into a kind of summons to bring about large-scale destruction (as articulated by Helen Woodson), during which explosives ("I will blow up rocket-launchers") are obviously taken for granted as being part of the equipment of the "peace?"-activist. One of the Dutch ploughshare activists once said: "The first few times that we entered such a (military) base it was always with the idea in mind that nothing at all should be damaged or destroyed. But little by little I have developed this tendency to inflict damages. What I considered to be inconceivable ten years ago has gradually developed into something perfectly common." (N.R.C., January 7, 1989).

The fact that the "ploughshare movement" got no broad support in any country has undoubtedly something to do with their action-model. On the other hand Greenpeace, a movement that does not want to have anything to do with destruction but, among other things, attempts to stop pollution and destruction and thus to expose and accuse them, gets massive support all over the world. If I were permitted to give a definition of nonviolence, I would say: Nonviolence is an attitude and a course of action which shows respect for and involvement with everything that lives. Mental, structural and physical violence, as well as pollution and destruction, are rejected. Nonviolence is characterized by careful association with people, the environment and material goods. (The "environment" is the entity of the life-sphere in which plants, animals and human beings can flourish in their interrelation.)

Alternatives 

The question "What is destruction?" has not been discussed yet. According to the dictionary it has something to do with "wrecking and damaging things", and by way of supplement it says that at the same time it is somebody's deliberate intention to "wreck" or to "damage" something. Among other reasons people.

The cartoonist Opland drew (for the Dutch paper De Volkskrant, May 19,1990) the new tools used by the infiltrators of the Dutch Internal Security Service in the peace movement: an awl to puncture holes in aircraft tires; a water pistol; a pair of nippers to cut through the gates of military bases; a crowbar to crack doors; a bug (monitor) concealed in a toy-windmill. The Dutch government obviously delights in showing "the correct path" to "peace activists" come to such behavior in order to draw people's attention, in a rather negative kind of way, to themselves or to what irritates and bothers them. Ploughshare activists try to make it clear to everybody that they "are trying to beat (re-forge) something bad into something good", but whether this should be done with axes (Kees Koning) or with explosives (Helen Woodson) is not only questionable, but not very effective either. Moreover: by doing this you will convince hardly anybody that hitting things with an axe or working with explosives has anything to do with "changing things into something better"; at the most you are turning your own rage and frustrations around and hardening them ("1 would never do this again. In future I will go from one place to another, destroying everything as thoroughly as possible" writes Helen Woodson).

Does painting slogans on walls or on a plane have anything to do with "destroying" ("damaging")? Or sprinkling blood around ("blood is the carrier of life")? Or setting a match to photos of a hateful dictator? Or cutting through the fence around a military base? Or smashing windows of a hated police-station? These questions need being considered and reflected on. There are so many different forms and ways of voicing our "protest" or our "rage". "Do we reach the hearts of those we accuse? Don't we brutalize ourselves by our actions? Is this the most positive/creative/constructive thing we can do?", the principled activist wonders. "Is this the way by which we gain the wide-ranging support of the population and can this cause changes in politics?", the pragmatic activist asks. "Will it achieve both?" the tactician asks.

Greenpeace does not choose such forms; its members do not lose themselves in destructive actions; they would rather paint their slogans on a large canvas and pin this up near the challenged company or ship. And who wants to do something with "blood" can just as easily take a hundred thousand blood-red scraps of paper and throw these around, while repeating the word "blood" over and over again. Greenpeace would rather blockade a ship than "damage it with an axe to re-forge it".

Our point of departure might be the following: let us avoid going after solutions by destroying or damaging things, but let us try to find it by talking to the people actually involved; by stopping and blockading things we consider to be undesirable; by adding something positive/constructive/creative, so that the hearts of people are touched and their sympathy is aroused. "Make use" of the negative in order to file a complaint against it; not by resisting it in a way that is just as negative, but by adding "something good", so that the contrast between the two becomes even more obvious and more pronounced. A large banner in front of a military barracks with the text "Atom bombs destroy both population and environment; develop a nonviolent solution to conflicts" will provoke people's thoughts and ideas far more than smashing the window panes of that same barracks. Combining these two approaches will render the banner implausible.

Anti-militarists, pacifists, nonviolent activists have different ways and means of waging struggle; different ways of making problems clear; different ways of arousing people and of mobilizing them. Let us not sink down to ways and means that are part of violence, oppression and destruction, but actively develop and show different ways and means.

"Killing and Destroying” 

The "general view" states that you are not allowed to kill and to destroy, and so wholesale killing and destroying takes place in our world, and by taking part in this you will receive a big salary and lots of decorations as well as long as you belong "to the right party". In our culture destruction (of people, animals, plants, matter) has been instilled into us right from childhood. Movies, both in the cinema and on television, are full of it. "Practically all the cartoons have something to do with guns or destroying something," observes an eleven-year-old girl-student of an elementary school in Brooklyn (New York). (Peace Media Service, Issue 21 - February 1991). Most people think "it is quite alright" and "one's just reward", if something or somebody they really have an aversion to is being destroyed 	 even if they themselves would never destroy or damage anything or anybody, of course.

When viewing films of some ploughshare actions, I realized that they reminded me of clumsy imitations of police- and war-movies I watched on television a few times when I was a child. Did this approach indoctrinate us so much that also some peace activists think that they have to follow that course in order to free the world from injustice? Could the courage, the unbridled energy and the keen insight of the various ploughshare activists not be put to better use for the benefit of humankind?

In Conclusion 

I wonder if in these reflections 1 have not turned too harshly and too fiercely on certain actions of people who, according to me, are faced with a moral dilemma and who very sincerely strive after radical and fundamental changes, yearning for a "total breaking up" of the militaristic system and the militaristic mentality? People who often take part in so many positive and constructive actions? "Why then getting excited about that tiny hole in that big atomic plant, that teeny-weeny fire in that hay-stack, that little spark of fire in the dry forest which you wish to save. We should shake people awake; we should destroy the pollution and destruct the destruction!"

I feel grave doubts about this kind of approach, and I am really very worried about it. It confirms "damaging and destroying" rather than indicting it. We are losing touch with the very people we want to reach. Is it really such a big step to abstain from "destroying and damaging", if you consider yourself to be a partner in that worldwide movement of people who sincerely, both in feelings and in deed, seek to put an end to this "destroying and damaging"? Can we try to find and try out new methods of approach which do not involve any form of "destroying and damaging" our world is already so full of?

I hope that within the WRI this matter will be given some thought so that a collective statement can be made in which the members renounce all forms of destruction and damage, and special emphasis is laid on the most positive, constructive and creative action models, which are used by peace activists with a view to stopping evil developments, while at the same time supporting and promoting developments for the better as much as they can. In this new method of approach the "broken gun" had better be replaced by the "upside down helmet containing a blossoming flower". Let us prepare ourselves for the year 2000 and for an era of nonviolent developments 	

EDITOR’S NOTE: Wim Robben was a Dutch member of WRI in the 1980s and 90s, and a frequent contributor to the Dutch, quarterly periodical, Geweldloos Actief (Active Nonviolence). He was also the author of, Bart de Ligt, zijn leven en denken tot 1919 (Bart de Ligt: His Life and Thought to 1919) and also edited De Ligt: Gekruid geluid. Bloemlezing uit zijn werk tot 1919,( Zwolle (Netherlands): St.Voorlichting Aktieve Geweldloosheid (SVAG), 1983, and co-edited Drie generaties spreken over Bart de Ligt, als vredes-aktivist, christen-socialist, anarchist, vrijdenker en humanist, Zwolle (Netherlands): SVAG, 1988. Please consult our De Ligt category for further articles about and by de Ligt. 

Caption

conscienceonline.org.uk
www.willmancini.com/