Non-Violent Defence

Non-violent defence is the best option. No doubt about it. It is much better than defensive political violence, and it can even be more effective than military defence. Non-violence was successfully used to bring down the Soviet Union, and it was used during the so-called Orange Revolution in Ukraine. It will probably be effective against dictators like Mussolini and Pinochet, but it will not help against totalitarian regimes. Non-violence could not have stopped Stalin or Hitler, because these regimes were too repressive. And non-violent protest in Rwanda would have been insane, an invitation to slaughter.

Non-violence can, in theory, easily stop oppressive multinational companies, but the problem is that non-violent protests against such firms often lack support. This lack of support makes non-violence ineffective. Non-violent activists have not been able to prevent 30 000 children from dying every day. That’s why it is necessary to consider alternatives to non-violent defence. Non-violence is still very important. And people like Bono do a great job. Unfortunately, it is not enough. Children are dying every minute while non-violent NGO’s try to change the global economic system. They have done a lot, and deserve credit for that. But defensive political violence is probably justified if one militant operation can save the lives of over 50 000 children. Arguably, this kind of rescue work can supplement non-violent efforts to change the system. Many arguments show that it is not either/or. Both non-violence and defensive violence can be just and necessary when human lives are in danger.