Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 11/19/10:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (2 comments)

Urges Non-Violent Response To International Aggression

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (31 fans)   -- Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com


Non-Violent Response Urged to Oppose U.S. Aggression

People the world over must find non-violent ways to oppose American military force lest they suffer the fate of the Iraqis---hundreds of thousands dead and a nation in ruins.

Given the growing menace of the American war machine, non-violent soul force should be considered as a response in international conflicts just as it was used nationally by Mahatma Gandhi in India and by the Reverend Martin Luther King in America.

During the Sixties, the Urban League's Whitney Young Jr. said of American blacks, "We can't win a shooting war." He was right. He and other black civil rights leaders supported Dr. King's approach. The success of their non-violent movement made America a better nation in which to live.

Today, in response to U.S. arrogance and aggression, non-violent "soul force" must be seriously considered, particularly by small nations of the sort the U.S. has a history of overthrowing or attacking. It will require courage and restraint by the threatened nations but they will earn the sympathy and support of the world by displaying these traits.

Nations faced with illegal assault by the U.S.---here Iran is an example as the U.S. has criminally threatened it with nuclear war---could announce they will not fire back or oppose an invasion.

If this seems like a lot to ask, consider the alternative: the futility of stopping a sophisticated U.S. war machine funded with $800-billion a year. (Did you know the Pentagon spends more for war than all 50 American states spend for peaceful purposes?)

Does a small nation with a $5- or $10-billion defense budget think it can "win" against USA? Does it think it will not suffer horrendous casualties if it fights back?

The best way to fight fire is not with fire but with water. And the best way to oppose violence is not with more violence but with non-violence. While each situation is different, a nation facing illegal assault---as Iran does today---might consider the following steps:

# Declare before the United Nations (and the world media) that it will not respond with force if attacked. Thus, an invader that comes in shooting will betray its criminal intent before the world.

# Request that spokespersons for religious groups and other prominent figures take up vigils on the rooftops or inside likely targets of attacks. Prominent clergy and leaders from other countries could be invited to participate in defending the besieged state.
 
# Demand that the invader submit its grievance to international arbitration.
 
# Nations opposed to the aggression could be urged to shut down their ports and airports to people and goods from the aggressor state. Its citizens could organize sympathy rallies and marches.


# A global boycott would be launched against the exports of the aggressor state.

# Any outstanding loans by the aggressor nation could be called in. Its currency would not be accepted.

# The aggressor nation could be stripped of its veto if it is a member of the UN Security Council, a body created to prevent wars, and other sanctions taken.

# People the world over could pledge not to travel to its shores on business or vacation or educate their children there.

Surely, there are probably other effective, steps that could be considered but these suggestions are made to convey the idea of how soul force might be put to work globally.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Sherwood Ross worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and contributed a regular "Workplace" column for Reuters. He has contributed to national magazines and hosted a talk show on WOL, Washington, D.C. In the Sixties he was active as public (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Pentagon does not know what the war is by Mark Sashine on Friday, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:29:11 PM
What if... by Donald on Saturday, Nov 20, 2010 at 10:22:10 AM