Political Conflict, Political Violence

Political conflict Cooperation and conflict - two main modes of politics Interactions between them Conflict can be waged by various means – from verbal to armed Conflict intensity affects capacity to cooperate Democracy accepts political conflict as a normal phenomenon and seeks to keep it in non-violent bounds Ideally, democracy should not erupt in violence In reality it often does

Political violence is the use of force for political ends Force is one of the tools of power People use force in: Exercise of power Struggle for power

Justifications of political violence Claiming the right to use force – in the name of: Survival, self-defence Order Justice Freedom Possession of resources (land, water, people, etc.)? Access to markets?

Exercise of power The state has a legitimate monopoly on the use of force The use of force is supposed to be regulated by law Lawful use of force Unlawful use of force How precise is the distinction? Who defines it?

Those in power have advantages in defining when they may lawfully use force – internally or externally Capturing and punishing criminals – those who violate the rights of others Protecting the existing order Defending the country from aggression Attacking other countries

Each of these actions of a state is a matter of contestation Those in power may be wrong on any of these issues from the point of view of those who are out of power Which is uppermost: the state’s monopoly on the use of force? or the existing constitution?

Political regimes differ in the degree to which they resort to violence Democracy is supposed to require the least amount of violence Totalitarian regimes are defined by their ready resort to state terror – they are terrorist regimes Most politics today is between those extremes: Violence as a last resort Non-violent means of social control predominate

Amritsar, India, April 13, 1919: https://www. youtube. com/watch

Ca ira! French revolutionary song, 1789: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9VoRmjxvPs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2UlNtNU-Tc “The Warsaw Song” Anthem of Russian revolutionaries, 1917 (listen to audio) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2UlNtNU-Tc “Hostile storms are raging over our heads. Dark forces are viciously oppressing us. We have engaged our enemies in a fateful battle, And our destinies are not to be known. But we shall raise, proudly and bravely, The banner of the struggle for the workers’ cause The banner of the great struggle of all nations For a better world, for sacred freedom! Refrain Onward to bloody battle, holy and righteous! March, march onward, working people!”

“We hate the tyrants’ crowns. We will break the chains holding the suffering people. We will redden the thrones, covered with the people’s blood, With the blood of our enemies. Death without mercy to all tyrants! To all parasites feeding off the working masses! Vengeful death to all plutocratic rulers! The glorious hour of victory is near! Refrain Onward to bloody battle, holy and righteous! March, march onward, working people!”

“A stone is a worker’s weapon”, by Russian sculptor A. Shadr

Russia, 1905: Mutuny on the battleship “Potemkin”

Armed citizen militia replaces the police in the Russian revolution of 1917

Chinese Communist poster from the 1950s: Mao Zedong calling for revolutionary war

The Tripoli Youth Movement, Libya, September 2018

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” Thomas Jefferson “Violence is the midwife of history.” Karl Marx

Use of force in international relations Imperialism, aggression Self-defence, wars of national liberation Legitimation Having the power to use force vs. Having the right to use force

What about nuclear weapons? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vYZ-FhldDM&feature=fvwrel There are 25,000 nuclear weapons in the world today They are in possession of just 9 states: (USA, Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea) They can be used by the order of a president – with devastating consequences Whatever the political rationale, should any government be allowed to possess - and use - such destructive power? Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: http://www.icanw.org/status-of-the-treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons/

Struggle for power Use of force in politics by those out of power is outlawed Use of force by governments: must be minimal, a last resort, and strictly regulated by law. Maximum tolerance of dissent and opposition by the state: allowing non-violent struggles form power

Rationalizations of the use of force against the state: Struggle for national independence Resistance to the use of force by the state Struggle for changes in state policy Struggle for reorganization of the state Struggle for political democracy Struggle for social change REVOLUTIONARY VIOLENCE

Why use violent means as a tool in these struggles Why use violent means as a tool in these struggles? Why not use peaceful means? Answers usually given: Peaceful means may not be available Peaceful means may be available, but not effective Why not effective? One may not have enough support in society The existing political rules may be rigged in favour of the status quo One may despise peaceful means and glorify political violence

Civil violence: use of force by groups of citizens against each other Communal, ethnic, religious, political The state is supposed to prevent it from happening But it may be unable – or unwilling to do so Governments may actually incite or encourage such violence to keep society under control

What does historical experience suggest? Use of force is a legal prerogative of the state, but it can be counterproductive Use of force by citizens against the state may be justified in extreme circumstances, but even when it can be morally justified, it can be counterproductive, too The Communist experience Revolutionary dictatorship, terror against opposition Violations of human rights Self-perpetuating rule by the bureaucracy The end does not justify the means

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), leader of the movement for India’s independence

Gandhi on Non-Violence “The first principle of non-violence is the non-compliance with everything that is humiliating.” “Mankind has to get out of violence only through non-violence. Hatred can be overcome only by love. Counter-hatred only increases the surface as well as the depth of hatred.” “Human dignity is best preserved not by developing the capacity to deal destruction but by refusing to retaliate. If it is possible to train millions in the black art of violence, which is the law of the Beast, it is more possible to train them in the white art of non-violence, which is the law of regenerate man.” “The power at the disposal of a non-violent person is always greater than he would have if he were violent.” “There is no such thing as defeat in non-violence.” “So long as one wants to retain one's sword, one has not attained complete fearlessness.”

1930: Gandhi leads a non-violent march to protest British salt monopoly

Humanity’s attempts to ban or at least reduce political violence

The 20th century Development of international legal norms to ban the most atrocious methods and weapons of political violence By governments against each other – and against citizens

Weapons of mass destruction Chemical and biological weapons Banned by international conventions of 1925, 1972 and 1993 Nuclear weapons 1963, 1996: Treaties banning nuclear weapons tests 1972-1910: Treaties limiting and reducing nuclear arsenals 2017: The Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons went into effect: http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons/

Conventional weapons 1980: The United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW or CCWC) to provide new rules for the protection of civilians from injury by weapons that are used in armed conflicts and also to protect combatants from unnecessary suffering. The convention covers fragments that are undetectable in the human body by X-rays, landmines and booby traps, and incendiary weapons, blinding laser weapons and the clearance of explosive remnants of war. 1997: The Mine Ban Treaty (The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction), known informally as the Ottawa Treaty, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, or often simply the Mine Ban Treaty 1997

1948: The United Nations Genocide Convention banned "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". Examples: Genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas (16th-19th centuries) The Armenian genocide (1915) The Holocaust (1939-45) The US war in Vietnam (1965-75) The Indonesian massacres of 1965-66 The Khmer Rouge rule in Cambodia (1975-79) The Rwandan genocide (1994) 1956 and 2016: an estimated total of forty-three genocides took place, causing the death of about 50 million people. The UNHCR estimated that a further 50 million had been displaced by such episodes of violence up to 2008.

Crimes against humanity The term “crimes against humanity” was used for the first time in 1915 by the Allied governments (France, Great Britain and Russia) when issuing a declaration condemning the mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. 1945: crimes against humanity were for the first time prosecuted at the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg. Both the Charter establishing the IMT in Nuremberg as well as that establishing the IMT for the Far East in Tokyo included a similar definition of the crime. 1997: creation of the International Criminal Court Other tribunals: the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Many States have also criminalized crimes against humanity in their domestic law; others have yet to do so.

From the Statute of the International Criminal Court: “Any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: Murder; Extermination; Enslavement; Deportation or forcible transfer of population; Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; Torture; Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; Enforced disappearance of persons; The crime of apartheid; Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

Trends in political violence: https://dartthrowingchimp.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/an-updated-look-at-trends-in-political-violence/ The surprising decline of violence – Steven Pinker: http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/21/steven-pinker-on-the-decline-of-violence

The hate speech controversy http://reason.com/reasontv/2018/01/04/what-is-hate-speech-ask-college-students

The Cult of Violence Always Kills the Left https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-cult-of-violence-always-kills-the-left/