Non-Violent Means for Conflict Resolution

With "war on terrorism" continue its full, violent course while the
likes of Korea and Taiwan continue to be silent battlegrounds of major
world powers, the general atmosphere of peace and cooperation seems
fragile indeed. Sure, major powers speak of nonviolence, but only
insofar as to the American military dominance is maintained (for
everyone except America) and the quagmire that is the "war on terror"
finally sees its light at the end of the tunnel (for the US). But has
anyone actually thought of nonviolence for the sake of nonviolent
resolution of problems, rather than measure for avoiding the huge
costs of war?

In the past, non-violent protest has been successfully utilized by
various social movements to achieve their goals of ending injustices.
The Indian national independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi and
the black civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. ended
the British colonial rule and the racial inequality in the U.S.,
respectively. As today's states become armed with more and more
dangerous and lethal weaponry, it is of a great importance for the
non-violent spirits of Mr. Gandhi and Dr. King to be expanded to
application in international affairs among the world's governments,
promoting peaceful diplomacy and avoiding deadly wars in solving
today's major issues.

As military technology become more and more advanced, it has become
less and less feasible for any country to wage war upon one another.
Especially with the advent of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),
including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, a combating army
can face massive casualty even if it has obvious tactical advantage
and is on the verge of complete victory. Famous examples include the
repeated use of toxic chemical gases in WWI and the Iran-Iraq War that
affected millions of combatants and civilians.

The traditional concept of tactical advantage (larger number of
well-trained soldiers and more advanced conventional weaponry) is now
obsolete as concentration of large numbers can now be perceived as
target for WMD. Also, with advanced technology, it is more and more
expensive to supply and maintain a sizeable armed force. The high
monetary cost of fighting a war is clearly illustrated by the
increased expenditure of the U.S. military due to its continued
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. The danger of mass casualty and
financial disaster should promote extensive use of non-violence in the
foreign policies of many states, including the major powers of the
world such as United States.

There are many ways that non-violence can be used for states to
achieve their goals in international politics. The use of non-violent
confrontation among governments through the means of diplomacy and
economic sanctions, although producing political tensions and economic
backlashes, has allowed governments to enunciate the political stances
and views without resorting to outright violent force. Such efforts
to use non-violent diplomacy in foreign affairs are exemplified by the
three rounds of Six-Party Talks with regard to the North Korean
nuclear crisis. Despite their inconclusive results, the Talks have
allowed all sides to understand the motivations of others and
temporarily made Washington more ambivalent about use of military
force to force a de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Much as Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, the use of non-violence
through diplomacy and negotiations can often allow for the expression
of attitudes and promoting sympathy and understanding by others,
whereas violence can only produce hatred by others for economic and
social disruptions. At the same time, non-violence can also cause
deliberate disruptions if necessary to achieve goals. The deliberate
disruptions include Dr. King's boycotts and sit-ins, Gandhi's hunger
strikes, and in the international arena of today, the UN economic
sanctions on Iraq in the early 1990s. The sanctions on Iraq, by
devastating the oil-exportation-based economy of Iraq, forced Saddam
Hussein to comply with disarmament after his failed invasion of
Kuwait. Although destroying the livelihood for many ordinary Iraqi
civilians, the UN was able to decrease Iraq's ability, both by
military and economical means, to resist UN authority without the
extra carnage on the battlefield.

In the international political arena, it is possible to use purely
non-violent methods to compel other states and achieve various goals.
Even though the concept of non-violence to resolve problems is best
known for their use by Gandhi and King to resist the policies of
national governments, it is also completely feasible as foreign
policies of nation-states. Through use of non-violent diplomacy and
economic sanctions, the international conflicts we face today can be
solved without massive death toll on civilians and soldiers as well as
destruction to economy and society.