It’s all violence

At some point in it’s evolution, humanity has to decide whether to accept violence or not.

At present, it appears we accept violence within certain rules. We say that if you did not initiate the violence, then you can be violent towards the aggressor, to any degree. This is called ‘self defence’ and few can think of an alternative. But why should defence be more morally right than attack? Can either be justified? What is the difference, morally?

Suppose you were a citizen of the United States of America and you own a gun and know how to use it. You are woken in the middle of the night by a noise downstairs. You arm yourself and go down to investigate. You see a dark figure and shoot. At this moment you believe you are acting in self defence, as is your right. You switch on the lights and to your horror you see the body of your teenage son lying on the floor. He was creeping back into the house after a secret night drinking with his friends. This is not fiction. This happens.

Just because the law enables a gun to be the solution to your ‘problem’, was this the only solution? Were there other more proportionate actions you could have taken? Yes, you could have switched on the light before you shot at a higher risk to your own life, or you could have called the police. You could have just done nothing. Each approach is problematic but only one invites heart break.

I lived in a country where only specialist police carry guns, England. Good peace keepers should be skilled at talking down a potentially violent situation. It’s a technique and can be learnt. Now many officers carry a Taser non-lethal gun as well as non-lethal CS gas. Non-lethal is a practical half way to non-violence.

Between attack and defence there are a thousand grey variations. The best option is always somewhere between total war and total defence; not either or. Ultimately they both are characteristics of the same thing; violence.

Fortunately most sovereign countries do not attack each other and a state of peace exists. But we know that peace is a fragile situation, where historical, economic and political rivalry bubbles away under the surface like a dormant volcano. Violence has to be contained for peace to exist and this is created using ‘deterrence’. Joining forces with another group of nations is one method of deterring attack. Not being a threat is another and here we realise that it is impossible to deter another nation without them being scared of you. Russia is presently in this conundrum with it’s relationship to NATO countries.

We watched as Russia reached a tipping point and claimed that Ukraine had a Fascist army. Historically, the communists (Soviet Union) and fascists (Nazi Germany) were enemies and this history still clearly carries some import as ‘justification’. By fighting ‘fascists’ Putin possibly feels he has his predecessors moral high ground on his shoulder. Coupled with a perceived threat from an expanding NATO and Ukraine moving towards joining the European Union; Putin is clever though and he does not use the word ‘war’ or ‘attack’. He insists he is acting in ‘self defence’ to NATO’s growing threat and his military action is just a ‘special operation’.

Words are master deceivers and suit Putin well. Because two words, ‘attack’ and ‘defence’ are the same thing; a resort to violence is claimed to be justified.

Zionist politicians in Israel have more or less done the same thing. They have an historical antagonism towards the people of Palestine whom they have been squeezed into smaller and smaller enclaves. Any similarity between this and the Warsaw Ghetto in the Second World War is of course, purely coincidental. The question is whether Palestinian or Isaraeli fighters are defending their country by attacking their neighbour. Defence quickly escalates into violent action that can get wildly out of control. The question of ‘proportionate’ use of violence (an eye for an eye) is the current debate.

So how can non-violence ever replace violence? The answer is it probably can’t whilst humans are attached to a materialistic and territorial lifestyle which they guard with weapons. In this respect humans are less sophisticated morally than most animals who rarely fight their own species to the death.

We learn to deal with violent conflict as children in the school playground. When we become adults we are expected to rise above violence as a solution to problems.

Two boys start fighting in the playground. A huddle of eager spectators quickly forms around them. These bystanders are too immature to try to pull the boys apart and instead encourage them. A stronger third party with moral responsibility for order is required; a teacher.

The teacher breaks up the mob and marches the two boys off to the headmasters office.

‘He started it!’ is a common defence from children. Their false logic is that when attacked there is no other response than a defensive counter attack. There is usually an option to run.

If we change the scale of our example, to that of governments and countries, you will find that ‘he started it!’ is also used as a justification for the use of violence by sovereign states. Only a third party intervention from a body with higher moral and political authority has the power to stop and settle wars. After the horrors of the second world war the League of Nations and subsequently United Nations was created to step into this role. The objective voice of world opinion should, in theory, make the warring parties ‘see sense’ and the more mature aim of seeking a peaceful resolution.

The United Nations and the United States of America, could go to the preesnt Israeli Zionist government and point out that killing innocent women and children in Gaza is morally unjustifiable. Putin could be hauled into the headteacher’s office by the United Nations, but has not.

Mahatma Gandhi lead a nation using moral authority based on non-violence. He wanted the British to leave India and for Indian people to govern themselves. His tactics using moral discipline, diplomacy and example turned out to be more powerful than the military might of the British Raj.

War was described by Carl von Clausewitz as ‘ the extension of politics by other means.’ Personally, I would be more precise and describe war as the extension of politics by violent means. This creates the logical possibility that peace is the extension of politics by peaceful means.

Of course, peace is an abstract idea and never completely exists but there is a place close to total peace which might be reached using skilled, non-lethal force.

To use a personal example, when I was a boy at school, I never sought to fight. When I was inevitably confronted aggressively, I stepped forward, put my leg behind the thigh of the aggressor and pushed him to the ground. Yes, it was violent but it only hurt a bully’s pride.

This was the extension of politics by peaceful means, meaning no one was hurt. Later in life I came across Aikido. This an unusual martial art in that it enables winning a fight without confrontation. For this reason it requires no strength and is ideal for women and the elderly.

An interesting example was given me by one of the teachers. He was on an ice-rink when he felt a hand going into his pocket and pulling out his wallet. Instinctively he grabbed the wrist of the thief and continued the forward movement of the pickpocket’s body. The result was to send him rapidly across the ice rink. In Aikido, the art is to avoid conflict using simple non-aggressive moves that eventually tire out or restrain the opponent until help arrives or submission.

City dwellers would do well to learn the tactics of pickpockets even if they do not feel able to defend themselves physically. Usually they work in teams in crowded places and choose victims carefully. This is done by the ‘spotter’. Then the thief moves in using much the tactics of the illusionist in a theatre to distract and act deftly. Then a third party intervenes by preventing escape or creating another distraction.

Governments would do well to learn from these examples at a micro scale of conflict. Having a clear aim is vital to managing any violent unsolicited action. The method of conducting the conflict and ending it with minimum force and casualties for both attacker and defender and vital. Fast and deft military moves have time and time again proved their worth on battle fields.

When Napoleon wanted to teach the Zhar of Russia a lesson for breaking their pact of unity in 1812, he formed an army and headed for Moscow. Contrary to most other opponents Napoleon had fought, the Russians did not line up and wait to be shot or cut down by flanking cavalry. Instead they conducted an extraordinary retreat, burning everything in their wake. Only when Napoleon reached Moscow did they choose their moment to swiftly counter attack. Napoleon’s army fled in disarray and only 5% of the original army returned to France.

Sun Zhu in his famous book on military tactics said, ‘engage with the ordinary, win with the extraordinary’. A little side stepping and originality can nimbly avoid a cataclysmic confrontation like Ukraine v Russia. ‘Give some ground,’ is one solution.

Special forces, such as the British Commando’s came to the forefront of military tactics in the Second World War, where small teams of four men used guerilla tactics against an unprepared enemy. Casualties for the attacking side were minimal compared to strategic gain.

Ultimately the choice is not whether to attack or defend but to avoid unecessary violence by what ever means possible. There are always alternatives that require imagination and focused problem solving techniques in exactly the same way the animals avoid killing their own species. There is no ‘perfect’ state of non-aggression where humans in their present terratorial state of consciousness are concerned. Perhaps in the future, peace will break out and violence will never be the preferred problem solving option. In the words of , ‘what if there was a war and nobody came.’

A Samurai was famous throughout his kingdom for his skill in battle and duels. This notoriety inevitably brought unwanted attention in the form of young swordsman. They were all eager to beat this Samurai and steal his fame and title.

One day the Samurai was on a large trading ship with a number of other passengers. As he stood staring at the water, he was approached by an impetuous young swordsman. He immediately challenged the Samurai to a duel amidst a string of insults. The Samurai looked him up and down and said he was busy. The young swordsman became more effusive so the Samurai agreed to a duel on an island they were passing. He told the young man to get into the small boat being towed by the ship and they would fight on the island. The swordsman immediately slipped down the rope and looked up expectantly. The Samurai cut the rope with his sword and the young man spun away in the wake of the ship.