Начало формы
Конец формы
By Lyutsiya Aysaeva
It`s common knowledge thatthe 20th century was full of events, one of which is devoted to the concept of nonviolent resistance (nonviolent conflicts). Many people are convinced that human beings are naturally violent and that consequently we cannot avoid wars, conflicts and general violence in our lives and societies. Other specialists claim that we can avoid thinking, feeling and acting violently, thus, Peter Ackerman is not the exception.In this paper I want to discuss about the appearance of nonviolent conflicts, the core of Gandhi`s studies and what is the term “violence” meansas well.
First of all I would like to say the theme of conflicts, whether violent or nonviolent, represents as an up-to-date, very vital and upburning issue.But can we talk about nonviolent conflicts without speaking of violence? Definitely not!Violence is seen as being of positive value. As far as I know, traditionally, in oriental cultures, peace has to do more with inner peace while in the western world peace is understood to be outside the individuals (absence of war or violent conflict). For example, Gandhi based his philosophy and strategy on a concept called Ahimsa, which means broadly to refrain from anything at all harmful. He said that Ahimsa means non-violence, and it means you may not offend anybody you may not harbor uncharitable thoughts.Nevertheless, sources of power can be divided into 2 categories: power of a regime and people power. I`ve got to know the Ashrams was a model of excellent future, they aimed at bringing people together regardless their faith, caste and class. Ultimately, a key message was the idea that nonviolent movements develop nonviolent civil resistance.
I can therefore say that the short and long-term consequences of a violent conflict in terms of human rights violations are devastating and leave deep scars in societies.
Coming back to Ackerman`s issue, it is necessary to focus on the next points: the first one that the use of nonviolent action in conflicts is on the increase; the second is to search the waysto understand the principles of effective nonviolent conflict (the scholar suggests twelve principles of strategic action).I take his pointdepicting how nonviolent sanctions--such as protests, strikes and boycotts--separate brutal regimes from their means of control.
Well, I definitely agree with the author that nonviolent action is possible in intense conflicts, but the conduct of nonviolent conflict can and should be strategic.During the whole issue, the scientist compares cases of especially nonviolent conflict. Most of them are selected in case of the fact they are similar on the one hand, and differ on the other hand. The author writes about the Indian case, famous for the nonviolent action which was a carefully conceived strategy to attain independence. To say more, each case represents a clearly discernible campaign.
There are literally hundreds of different forms of non-violent resistance and struggle, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. I can mention the methods of nonviolent action, which are: the mildest- protest and persuasion (includes symbolic actions such as marches or parades, mass demonstrations, letters, speeches, picketing, etc; any action which voices peaceful opposition to a policy or a law; in other words, the goal is to persuade others to change their attitude towards that policy and to join the nonviolent struggle), the strongest- noncooperation (civil disobedience, strikes, boycottes), intervention (sit-ins, nonviolent blockades, nonviolent invasion, seeking imprisonment). This concept Gandhi was kept as well, underlineda list of such categories of nonviolent action in his book “Political Strategist”. Moreover, nonviolent action is most effective in democratic states, notwithstandingnonviolent resistance may be used as a form of national defense.Ackerman stresses on such nonviolent methods, serve as instruments of power, as sanctions; and they must also be matched with the mechanism of change. It must be admitted that sanctions, mechanisms and outcomes make the heart of strategic nonviolent conflict.
So, I`ve chosenthe International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)[1], to say more it is co-laureate of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. Just in brief, some words about the ICBL activity: well, it serves as a global network in over 90 countries that works for a world free of antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions, where landmine and cluster munition survivors can lead fulfilling lives; the ICBL is engaged in the global effort to ban cluster munitions and to address their humanitarian impact.With regard to scholar`s issue, the campaign is standing very closely to its content. Antipersonnel landmines claim victims in every corner of the globe each day. Incapable of distinguishing between the footfall of a soldier and that of a child, they remain a threat long after the end of a conflict. Stepping on a blast antipersonnel mine will invariably cause foot and leg injuries, and secondary infections usually resulting in amputation. Fragmentation mines project hundreds of metal fragments, showering the victim with deep wounds. Bounding fragmentation mines are more powerful versions: they spring up about 1 meter and then explode, firing metal fragments to a large radius. There are dozens of reasons to ban antipersonnel landmines and to campaign for this goal. Thus, taken into account all this factors, I consider the fact of banning landmines and cluster munitions have slowly transferred into the process of starting nonviolent conflicts. It is similar to the expression like this one: “no landmines – no violent conflicts”!
[1]