Speech-Andrew

 “I believe in life. I believe in human beings. I am the enemy of anything which deprives anyone of life” Kenneth Patchen's words might have revolutionized literature and the art of reading, but they should seem obvious in the discussion of human life. human existence remains a prerequisite for any sort of discussion, existential or mundane. I don't know how to emphasis human life enough. Quotes about the intrinsic value of life seem absurd. Without life the author wouldn't be writing, and nobody would read his words. Yet perpetual war has shown that few grasp the value of life.

While no sane creature takes their own life, war and violence of evident of a value judgment that people's increased gain, either in physical wealth, perceived safety, or ideological dogma matters more than others intrinsic right to experience life and aesthetic beauty. One only has to look to recent police brutality or conflicts in the Middle East to know how common it is. No logical discussion can change someone's value's judgment, nor should one try to. My goal is to explain why even from the most egocentric standpoint, non-violent conflict resolution serves one's goals better than violent means.

Wars, from the beginning of time have granted benefits for small numbers of individuals at the expense of huge populations of life and wealth. I would like you to pay attention to two specific American conflicts, the benefits of which are not what's always proposed. The Iraq and Vietnam War were fought because of financial motivations, and for select individuals too. That statement isn't hippie conspiracy theory, it's legitimate historical fact. As Noam Chomsky stated “We fought the war to prevent Indochina from carrying out successful social and economic development... I mean, sometimes it reaches a point of almost fanatic effort to make them suffer.” The War in Iraq was just a more successful instance of this historical trend of waging war for economic gain. While it cost the American people six trillion dollars, it had tremendous financial benefit for select people. The former head of military operations in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid, is on record for saying “Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that.”. And that's not oil for the sake of the American good. Companies like Halliburton and Chevron donated record amounts of money to candidates in 2000 and 2004 elections and granted executives high paying jobs in exchange for the access to the oil fields they've been granted. The cost of these wars is more than monetary.

Millions of people, whether American soldiers or civilians of areas we invaded were killed or maimed. Even those with no obvious physical injuries suffer. The Institute of Medicine estimates that half a million American soldiers currently suffer from PTSD. I'd be very curious to hear any sort of value system that considers those costs worth whatever wealth a few might have gained from those conflicts.

But enough with the cynicism. There comes a time when legitimate issues arise for average citizens. Governments, corporations, or foreign invaders might be oppressing them. Surely when faced with such injustice, it becomes not only permissible, but necessary to fight back with any means available? Let me remind you non-violent resistance does not equal passivity. Nowhere in the process does it involve being complacent while injustice is being wrought upon a people. What non-violent resistance has shown is that, not only is it a viable option for accomplishing goals, but it remains the only permanent one. For the moment ignore any ethical dilemmas of killing another person, ignore the psychological trauma it brings upon all parties, ignore the selfish motivation for wars. The historical record shows that non-violent action is the only option to obtain permanent ends to injustice.

What about military actions that alleviated injustice? The famous historical example is World War II. Let's examine that claim. Assuming that World War II was fought for purely altruistic means, which is quite an assumption, that claim is still in dispute. The aftermath of the war led to more occupation of countries by foreign countries than the Axis ever accomplished. Soviet Russia caused so many executions, internment camps, and general injustice, it's enough to make a Nazi's mouth water. And the Jewish people, who were granted a nation of their own promptly turned around and forced new injustices upon the original occupants. I struggle to find any measurement that the world after WWII was any more free or just.

Martin Luther King's civil rights movement and Gandhi's use of satyagraha for Indian Independence are the most famous instances of successful non-violence accomplishing goals that would otherwise be impossible, but numerous others exist, and the accomplishments of these movements have been diminished. As impossible as it would have been for Indian or African American populations to accomplish their goals through military and violent means, the non-violent methods that they implemented were more effective in accomplishing permanent goals.

The historical record shows that violent struggles for equality have never had long lasting effects. Only after a long period of non-violent resolution can permanent issues of injustice be healed. It took the Civil Rights movement a hundred years after the Civil War to obtain legal equality. Nelson Mandela attempted to end the apartheid through the violent sabotage with the Nation of the Spear. This was only met with increased violence against the civilian population and more injustice. It was not until thirty years later when the African Nation Congress adopted non-violent means to accomplish their goals that they had resounding success with ending the violence against innocent Africans and eventual governmental reform to end the Apartheid. Even from the point of view of the white government, violence only succeed in souring international opinion against them. An article in the Journal of Peace Research by professors at University of Otago (In New Zealand) shows that violent opposition to nonviolent protests is never successful in the long run.

 The Documentary A Force More Powerful illustrates some of the more prominent of these non-violent movements and the International Centre of Non-Violent Conflict also provides some spectacular research if you're curious about more of the history. Non violent resistance is effective against injustice, not just through governments or dictatorships. India, Egypt, Czechoslovakia, Pakistan, and Aceh, West Paupa, Estonia all owe their independence, or the continuing struggle to non-violent resistance to occupying forces. Guatemala and Columbia also have ongoing non-violent conflicts to end violence and war within their regions. As Lucy probably knows, non-violent movements are important for women’s suffrage and struggle for equal rights throughout the globe. With adequate training and dedication, non violent resistance holds a perfect record for permanent alleviation of injustice, and that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. As Albert Camus said “Peace is the only battle worth fighting for.”