Quiet pacifism inadequate response to war in Ukraine

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/03/2023 (962 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

I am a pacifist. To me there is no such thing as justified violence or just war, a belief nurtured not only by my Mennonite Christian heritage, but by ideals of what it means for everyone to imagine the possibility of living a truly human life.

But it seems wrong — too easy — to be a quiet pacifist today.

In a world where unwarranted hunger and disease, oppression and victimization, exploitation and abuse, domestic violence and mass murders, and civil conflict and brutalizing wars flood our daily media, it’s hard to dismiss force and violence as a logical response.

At this moment it is particularly difficult to witness the inhumanity of the war in Ukraine without wanting punitive retaliation against the perpetrators. For a pacifist, it’s a moral dilemma to find myself cheering for the Ukrainian army. Just-war theory is also a Christian creation, albeit a competing one.

The war in Ukraine, like all wars, lacks any reasonable justification. While just-war advocates would decry the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the killing it entails, they would nevertheless support Ukraine’s moral right to defend its citizens and protect innocent lives through the proper use of force and violence. In other words, just-war theory would justify both Ukraine’s use of military force and its reasons for defending itself militarily.

Just-war adherents might consider “neutralizing” the likes of Osama bin Laden, for example, as a necessary response to threats to citizenry and the world. Some of my pacifist friends believe that if Russian President Vladimir Putin lost his power and control, it would mean an end to the war. But this seems to me too simple a solution; the war is backed by the Orthodox Church and many Russians both inside and outside the country. “Just war” just does not work; it avoids dealing with the ongoing, underlying causes of conflict.

A preference for pacifism should not be equated to non-resistance; scrupulous pacifism requires resistance, albeit non-violent. Good examples are the Idle No More movement in Canada, the civil rights action in the United States and the conscientious objectors in both countries during the Second World War.

These were not military invasions, and the one thing we know for sure is Ukraine did not invade Russia. Given that, it is difficult not to contemplate pacifism as a weak response to the barbarity unfolding before our eyes, and consider just war as a more reasonable, effective and appropriate response.

The world obviously needs a way to think beyond war and conflict for dealing with the imperial ambitions of some countries’ leading strongmen. We need more than one alternative, rather than deferring to physical force and violence to deter those who wish to impose their will on others.

This is where a pacifist imagination, however naive and idealistic it might seem, offers some hope — but also presents a tremendous challenge to all of us.

When the Russian buildup of troops on the Ukraine-Russia border first foreshadowed the coming invasion, I became aware of the inability of our present political arrangements to act. Ukraine, not belonging to NATO and not having the capacity to match military strength, apparently had no option but to wait and hope. NATO, for various political reasons, and fearing military escalation, hesitated to intervene.

And the United Nations was powerless, except for soliciting humanitarian support, because of an archaic Security Council structure that indulges a Russian veto, even when the UN’s own conventions on human rights and sovereignty are violated.

Without a different way of thinking about the conflict beyond the military option of arming Ukraine the current situation seems inevitable.

At the risk of being called fatally naive, I sometimes imagine alternative scenarios. Global leaders could descend en masse on Moscow, collectively confronting Putin face-to-face. If it works for the global economy, perhaps also for global peace and security.

NATO and the UN, or some other global organization, could establish peace reserves, reservist armies of peace activists (unarmed peacekeepers) who could be called upon to intervene non-violently by their collective presence in anticipated and real military conflicts.

For example, as Russia was amassing its military at the Ukraine border, what if 20,000 multinational UN peace reservists had set up camp across from them as a human barrier to cross? It would cost less than fighter jets to support this effort, and might be more effective. Just saying — and I’m willing to be one of them.

John R. Wiens is dean emeritus at the faculty of education, University of Manitoba. A lifelong educator, he has served as a teacher, counsellor, work education co-ordinator, principal, school superintendent and university professor.