Toppling Them Softly...

Nick Gillespie | May 21, 2003

Newsday has an interesting piece about how nonviolent resistance has played a role in toppling tyrants in Yugoslavia, Chile, the Philippines, and elsewhere.

Writes Bob Keeler:

The tactics of nonviolent conflict won't always succeed. But violent internal uprisings have little chance against the state's greater violence, and invasion shatters infrastructure and impedes democracy-building after the struggle ends. So nonviolent strategy should be considered a serious option.

Next up may be Cuba, where Castro's recent repression is alienating his few remaining apologists. That's often a leading indicator that a dictator is on the verge of a nervous takedown.

Comments

Brian|5.21.03 @ 1:57AM|#

I thought our strategy for regime change in Cuba was just to wait for Castro to die. It seems like since we've waited this long, we might as well ride it out...

Croesus|5.21.03 @ 2:15AM|#

The British killed their fare share of Indians before they finally gave up; they also beat them with wooden poles and the like, breaking arms and legs and the like. Why anyone thinks that India's revolutionary movement was a bloodless affair, I can't say. The British were tenacious when it came to holding their empire together; be it against the Boers, Jamaicans, Indians, Canadians, etc.

david f|5.21.03 @ 2:26AM|#

of course by invoking "ghandi" or "non-violent change", the lefties of the world can lord it over the rest of us WAS(P) oppressors.

and non violent ghandi-style protests sure worked in iraq and iran...

and brian, castro is probably dead, but all of the ILM people in hollywood keep his image alive for protest purposes (also to show that straight white males are evil). and to allow them to show how open minded they are by cozying up to him, probably to get the lewinsky treatment with one of castro's cigars.

also, in all of these non-violent examples, the citizenry weren't allowed to have a gun. sure that's a simplification, but the oft-cited regulation of weapons in the slave south was a good way of keeping the protests non violent.

and all the while, the minutemen, etc. are removed as school mascots because they represent the evil oppressors. yet look at what they did.

|5.21.03 @ 2:27AM|#

Trying the peacful way sure worked great in China! Man I just loved the way the tanks refused to run over the students protesting for freedom! Get real, peace only works when you don't have leaders willing to kill or imprision all of disidents. Slobodan Milosevic did not have the power to kill half the population of his country. Hilter did. Saddam did. Castro does. Kim Jong Il does. Non-violence only works when the people in power care somewhat about their people's lives. This does not mean we should not promote it. It is the best solution to some very bad problems in this world, but we have to remember it is not allways posible.

Derek

|5.21.03 @ 2:33AM|#

FYI - In most of the examples cited in the piece the dictator simply quit, i.e. wasn't removed from power. The piece says nothing about those that refuse to resign.

holger viking|5.21.03 @ 2:36AM|#

one who refused to resign was just removed. will johng ill (or whatever the hell his name is) be next?

the irony that bush is an imperialistic pres. in the vein of wilson is kinda funny.

the best example of resistence comes from norway after quisling sold them out. the norwegians, not the french, should be the darlings of w. war 2 resistence stories.

SM|5.21.03 @ 3:27AM|#

The Gandhi Vs British Empire is not quite the same as Tianamen square. The British were hypocrites ie they thought of themseleves as christian gentlemen or something similar but were not really living up to their principles; very loudly professed ones at that. Gandhi was more than aware of this. He's on record as saying - i dont remember the context - that the holocaust is an example of what a regime can achieve when it does not harbour any pretensions to humanitarian nobility etc which protestors can appeal to.
In other words - non-violence may not work against people who believe that power comes from the barrel of a gun and believe only this.

BTW, in response to an earlier comment, i dont believe there was any rigorous gun control in british india. I could be wrong.

|5.21.03 @ 3:54AM|#

I've often wondered why the Palestinians don't use nonviolent methods to press their case. Blowing up themselves and others obviously isn't working. At least nonviolent methods have a chance of creating sympathy. The payoff is that if it were successful, then maybe other Arab lunatics would also realize that violence doesn't work.

|5.21.03 @ 4:04AM|#

Bruce,

Why don't the Palestinians use nonviolent resistance? The people directing the Palestinian resistance (please note that I didn't write "The Palestinians") don't want to achieve a fair deal with the Israeli state, but to destroy it. No government, however moral, will go that far.

Which is too bad. If 100,000 Palestinians sat down in the middle of every major intersection in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv...game, set, match, the Palestinian flag flies over Orient House.

|5.21.03 @ 4:14AM|#

but joe, how will that slay the infidels?

|5.21.03 @ 4:21AM|#

The Fattah/PLO/Palestinian Authority people leading the Palestinian resistance could give a shit about infidels; their secularists, who just want their guys to have political power, instead of those other guys.

You're lumping things together.

|5.21.03 @ 8:34AM|#

Of course, when that woman tried to non-violently block the bulldozing of a Palestinian house, she was killed, and LGF, Free Republic and their ilk (even Dennis Prager, a radio host I used to respect, seemed to approve it) treated her like she was handing out the explosives belts herself. Way to give incentives to non-violent action there.

|5.21.03 @ 8:45AM|#

And it was just a coincidence that the 2 UK citizen bombers had been hanging out with her little "peace group" right before going off to blow themselves up. She was there preaching hatred which doesn't justify her being killed. But if the military is bulldozing a house full of terrorists weapons, get the f.. outta the way dumbass!

|5.21.03 @ 12:00PM|#

Mayhap, IF the authoritarian regime is in the last stages of terminal decline, e.g., East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, or the USSR, a point where even the ruling elites do not believe in the system. But, Fidel won't go down without a fight nor will Kim Jong Il. Where the ruler and his cadre maintain belief in the necessity of their rule, non-violence will not succeed; it just leads to lots of dead bodies in the street. Well, not even that... it leads to a few dead bodies in the street, the mob runs off and then the big crack down.

|5.21.03 @ 12:06PM|#

What would have happened to Gandhi if the officer comanding that train had been Japanese instead of British?

|5.21.03 @ 12:22PM|#

A very flat Ghandi, of course...

SM|5.22.03 @ 1:09AM|#

"Of course, when that woman tried to non-violently block the bulldozing of a Palestinian house, she was killed" etc
Anonymous - Do you know how many Indians were killed participating in non-violent protests against the Brits ? Sorry - your argument does not work.

|5.22.03 @ 3:46AM|#

Violent revolution against despots probably does tend to produce new despots more then non-violent means do. The American revolution turned out so well because it was infused with the idea of individual liberty. See: "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" by Bernard Bailyn. See also: "The English Libertarian Heritage", David Jacobson Ed. for an account of the writings of Trenchard and Gordon in the minds of the American colonists. Their writings "ranked with Locke". One can imagine that non-violence would work better against Castro if the embago was gone as there would also be a more free flow of information and a wider choice of actions and resourses for the Cuban people. Also, Castro would feel greater international pressure against a blood bath in an embargo free situation. The revolt of repressed religion helped overthrow Polish Communism as Reagan and the the Pope conspired to assist Solidarity. See: "Reagan's War" by Peter Schweizer. Non violence can even be successful against determined and pretty ruthless regimes such as Erik Honecker's East Germany as even the rulers had freinds and relatives they were reticent to butcher. Sort of puts a limit on the "massacre" option to putting down dissent. Although it seems worth a try, the opposite situation is why non-violence might not work as well for the Palestinians; they would likley have it met with continued carnage. Also the religios extremism of a good number of those whom Sharon counts on for support make it more likely that Palestinian mass civil disobedience would be met by lethal millitary violence. See: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" by Israel Shahak (a great volume for aiding understanding of the Israeli, Palastinian confict as well as much interesting and surprising Jewish history. Of course we could employ some non-violent tactics ourselves to help both the Palestinian and Israeli people by persuading our government to quit funding the occupation.

|5.22.03 @ 4:25AM|#

Of course the Likud-niks would respond with carnage. That's the point; the majority of Israeli citizens would be horrified by what is being done in their name, and finally come out against the regime that doesn't really command much support in the first place.

The first wave of Palestinian nonviolent resistance would have to be prepared for what would basically be suicide missions. To date, that has not been much of a problem.

david f|5.22.03 @ 4:36AM|#

hey joe!

just read yer other comments. nice again!

have a great evening!
drf

|5.22.03 @ 5:17AM|#

i like rick's teutontic accent

John Hensley|5.22.03 @ 10:08AM|#

The dictatorships in Poland, Chile, and Serbia fell peacefully only because the dictators established democratic processes that the opposition could use to its advantage. The same process is at work in Zimbabwe today. Saddam would never allow this to happen, nor will Castro , nor will Kim (indeed, he has even suspended fake elections).

Scarbrough Elizabeth|9.10.04 @ 12:23AM|#

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://digital-photo-software.online-photo-print.com
DATE: 01/20/2004 09:19:27
Morality by consensus is frequently morality by convenience.