The poverty of pacifism

(first published 14th Feb 2012)

The EU embargo of Iran’s oil exports is, for many, the ominous sign of a march to war with Iran. However, in her article last week, Ekaterina Daminova explained that the embargo has started another march: the Stop the War Coalition. Once again, as in 2003, crowds have taken to the streets to protest against so-called “Western imperialism.” In my opinion, it is essentially a bull market for anyone who fancies themselves as a public speaker. So long as they can fit the words “blood” and “oil” into a sentence or, failing that, make a vitriolic pronouncement against Tony Blair or George Bush, then there is plenty of applause on offer.

Daminova concluded by praising the Stop the War coalition’s effort and wishing it well. However, I wish to explain why any morally responsible individual should actually be wishing them all the worst as their unrelenting brand of unconditional pacifism is not only morally bankrupt but also has a horrific historical legacy of which many seem blissfully ignorant.

George Orwell, in his tremendous essay entitled “Looking back on the Spanish Civil War,” does a fantastic job of laying bare the evils of pacifism as he explains how the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s brought him to the realisation that some forces, namely those of theocracy and totalitarianism, cannot be contained through compromise and tragically will only answer to force. Orwell came to this difficult and sobering decision when he went to Spain to fight against Franco. In a similar way, Nelson Mandela realised this in the 1960s when he opposed the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Notably, Mandela and other activists turned to violent opposition after first trying to replicate the “passive resistance” practiced by Gandhi in India with disastrous and bloody consequences as, unlike the British, the apartheid regime did not welcome peaceful negotiations. Even though it is preferable to armed conflict, these events provide an important example of how pacifism is not universally applicable. If it is taken as an unconditional stance, pacifism can lead to greater bloodshed and misery than active opposition. One can only imagine the consequences if Gandhi got his wish in 1942 and the British had left India to oppose a Japanese invasion with “passive resistance,” which was Gandhi’s expressed desire.

So, coming back to the point in question, we have to recognise that Iran, despite signing agreements with the European Union, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has broken every promise it has made in its continual pursuit of nuclear weapons. UN inspector Yukiya Amano is fast showing us that all of Iran’s pledges are worth less than the paper that they are written on.

Evidently, dialogue alone is not working and we have to make the decision between continued pacifism or the upholding of international law, particularly the non-proliferation of nuclear weaponry. If this decision is not already a no-brainer then one should also consider Iran’s continual backing and arming of terrorist movements in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan which is bound to increase if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. There does not seem to be much talk about a coalition to oppose these acts of war.

Now we must move on to tackle the inane and glib accusations made by members of the anti-war movement about “Western imperialism” and its thirst for oil. If the West is an oil-craving monster then why on earth is it putting an oil embargo on Iran, consequently endangering its own economic recovery? Furthermore, if the West is only led by its lust for oil then it would have been on the side of Gaddafi, who provided a steady supply of cheap oil, in the Libyan civil war instead of supporting Libya’s uncertain and potentially volatile ongoing push for democracy. Clearly there are more concerns at play in Western foreign policy than just black gold.

I believe that a striking and frightening parallel can be drawn between the Stop the War Coalition and the American anti-war movement of the Second World War which, right up until 1945, believed that fighting Nazism was none of America’s business and that the war was only fought in the interests of big corporations. Going back to Orwell, the fatuous figure that is Michael Moore has drawn inspiration from 1984 when describing the war on terror as a classic example of an endless war waged for political expediency. However, surely the most interesting insight that can be drawn from Orwell’s masterpiece is that the anti-war movement seems to have grasped the power to mask incoherence as it continues to fight its own endless war against the USA.

Next time they go on a march, let’s hope it rains.