A Tufte-esque Approach to De-Mystifying the INF and Its Locus in "Mittleuropa"

Napoleon's Russia campaign, 1812-1813

The image above is, perhaps, the iconic example of the thinking of Edward Tufte. It stands for the proposition: you can use graphics to help people greatly increase their perception of what is going on with a numerically dynamic situation -- the key is to use the plane of the paper to capture the interaction of multiple dimensions simultaneously.

This image illustrates four dimensions together: the size of Napoleon's army as he marched toward (and then away from) Moscow during the War of 1812, the location of the army, the time, and the weather conditions. One can instantly get the picture: an overwhelming force, heading off to fight in Russia, full of confidence and bravado, only to find itself retreating as it is annihilated little by little by cold and hunger and disease. (More about this image on Edward Tufte's website.)

Tufte says, in essence, that we remember to make the fullest possible use of our visual and spatial intelligence. Sure, text and stories are useful; but how about drawing me a picture? (To me, the position Tufte advocates resonates strongly with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.)

I've been thinking about this particular image for a long time, since I first encountered it when I was in college in the late 1970s. Then, recently, several elements presented themselves to me.

The first is a chart of the pace of nuclear disarmament, showing the advance toward a peak US nuclear weapons arsenal in the 1960s and then progress -- in fits and starts -- in reducing that arsenal:

The American Nuclear Stockpile
Click to view full size on The New York Times website.

The second has been the increased attention that I have begun to give to NATO and the idea of Central Europe as the front line of nuclear confrontation. I read several books by Timothy Snyder, and realized that the bone of contention is an area of land that lies between Germany in the west and Russia and the east -- a place about which most people in the US have only the vaguest notion.

Since I first visited Berlin, Prague, Budapest, and Vienna in 1990, I have been fascinated by a sort of terra incognita that lies between the known West (France, England) and the Other in the East (Russia, China) -- a zone that is at once vaguely charming and vaguely menacing. I suppose I should get serious about understanding it; but there is also something appealing about letting it remain mysterious -- a Mittleuropa whose reality and destiny we can leave to someone else to worry about.

I had my "Tufte moment" when I read about a visit by Senator Sam Nunn in 1973 to meet with NATO commanders in Europe. Nunn was stunned to learn that the military assumed that they would use nuclear weapons if there were a fight in Europe. They had scoped out the geography (the chokepoint is a place called the Fulda Gap) and they had run the numbers (150,000 NATO troops vs. 450,000 from Warsaw Pact countries). "The invasion route would put the Warsaw Pact forces quickly within striking distance of Frankfurt and several large American military bases." (Philip Taubman, The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors and Their Quest to Ban the Bomb, p. 198 ff.).

It seems to me that there needs to be an infographic -- analogous to the one of Napoleon's army - that conveys the state of affairs in Central Europe, and how it is controlling our destinies. Perhaps an ingredient that would be helpful would be the events of the 1980s centering on the deployment of Pershing II and SS-20 missiles (see Taubman, p. 230).

An infographic illuminating the historic nuclear confrontation in the center of Europe - this would be a timely inquiry. The US has pulled out of something called the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Most people -- including myself -- struggle to understand what's really at stake.

Maybe it's time for someone to draw us a picture.


Postscript

I was stimulated to finally post this note because I had to look up an unfamiliar word -- anabasis -- used by my son in describing the film, Apocalypto. "Anabasis" means both a military advance and a a difficult and dangerous military retreat, and the graphic that Tufte touted came to mind.

By the way, proponents of greater attention to another one of our multiple intelligences -- musical intelligence -- might note that the graphic about the War of 1812 is mightily complemented by one of the great works in our classical music canon: Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture." But that is a blog post for another day . . . .

Trump Is Right: It's Time to Deprecate NATO and Denuclearize

NATO: Soooooo 1949!!

"Deprecate" is a fancy software word that means, "That's so last year. Don't use it any more. Everybody's doing this new thing . . . ."

I'm sure many in the defense establishment are having a conniption over Trump's deprecation of NATO. But maybe they just need to get with the times . . . ?

Ever since the NATO summit in Chicago in 2012, I've been struggling with this problem: NATO isn't helping us, and is probably hurting us, but it's got loads of supporters in the establishment and the general public is puzzled about what it's all about. So how do we ever move on?

That's why the word "deprecate" seems appropriate. While admitting that it's going to take some time to work the remnants out of the system, let's set our sights on the next thing and start developing.

You can see how how ready NATO is to be retired by looking at how even its supporters talk about it. Yesterday's New York Times touted the importance of NATO by dragging out the tired old quip that got the whole thing started 70 years ago:

"keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in and the Germans down"

(Oh, yeah, and the Times cited NATO's role in those paragons of successful military adventure: "Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, and elsewhere.")

QED.

For years, I've been writing about the need for the US president to get down to the real business at hand: finish the job of negotiating nuclear disarmament with Russia.

Job #1 Vis-a-vis Russia: NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

The Lesson of Reykjavik: TALK About Nuclear Disarmament (You Never Know)

Obama: Go to Moscow!

Obama's (and Putin's) Missed Opportunity at Hiroshima

Messrs. Trump and Putin: CHANGE THIS MAP!

Obama wouldn't even sit down with Putin. By scheduling a meeting with Putin, Trump is already ahead of the game.

As for NATO, one glaring problem is its annual war games at the Russian border (e.g. "US Army Launches War Games on NATO's Eastern Flank"). I wonder if during the next 48 hours, Trump will say something similar to his remarks with respect to Korea:

"Holding back the 'war games' during the negotiations was my request because they are VERY EXPENSIVE and set a bad light during a good faith negotiation. Also, quite provocative. Can start up immediately if talks break down, which I hope will not happen!"

That would lead to more conniptions at the Pentagon, I'm sure.

On the other hand, the nations of Europe (including all those erstwhile NATO members) should be the first to see the urgency of denuclearizing.

The US and Russia control the vast majority of the world's nuclear weapons.
(Image: Global News)

(More on Europe and denuclearization.)

Please share this post . . . .

"Brexit"? How about "Nitchit"? (NATO: Ditch it!)

The vote on UK quitting the European Union (EU) -- "Brexit" -- proves one thing: in 2016, people can get their minds around quitting NATO, too . . . if we help them!

NATO: Soooooo 1949!! (Isn't it time to ditch it?)
(Please share this message.)

What I learned during the NATO protests in Chicago in 2012 is that the vast majority of people don't understand what NATO is, much less why it poses a problem.

We need a visual message -- provocative, memorable, smart -- that members of the general public will carry with them. It needs to be something that people don't want to simply forget. It needs to leave a nagging question percolating in their brains.

One thing we have going for us is that, more and more, people are realizing that the East-West confrontation of the US (and its allies) vs. Russia is passé. (Hence the B/W image above.) With each day that goes by, NATO-style scaremongering carries less and less weight with the average person.

What more and more people are scared about is the huge number of US and Russian nuclear weapons, sitting ready to be used.  As an affirmative message, people really understand that the there is a need for leaders to quit making and excuses and get together and solve this problem:

Putin and Obama: #talk

The best way to stop wasting time and start moving toward real security?

"Nitchit" 

(NATO: Ditch it!)

Related posts

Today, we may not be seeing kinetic (currently unleashed) violence on anything like the scale that consumed Europe and other parts of the world and resulted in 60 million deaths. Instead, thanks to technology, we have potential (waiting to be unleashed) violence -- nuclear devastation just the push of a button away.


(See Obama's (and Putin's) Missed Opportunity at Hiroshima)



It seems like an appropriate time to remember the protests against NATO in Chicago in the spring of 2012. (What do YOU remember about the NATO protests?)

(See Flashback: Protesting NATO in Chicago - May, 2012 )





Three factors have played a big part in Germany's decision to go 100% "zero nuclear" by 2022 has relied on : the threat posed by the big powers, soul-searching within a very "bourgeoise" society, and organizing.

(See GERMANY TURNS OFF NUCLEAR: The long road to freedom . . . . )











Conveniently, a large military alliance -- NATO -- bristling with weapons, has announced itself ready to step in and contest annexations of territories by Russia. For NATO, the measure of resolvability of conflict is firepower.

(See Crimean War? Crimean Showdown? or Crimean Mediation? It's Time for Americans to Get Some New Vocabulary )

GERMANY TURNS OFF NUCLEAR: The long road to freedom . . . .

One of the most important messages stressed at the World Nuclear Victims Forum in Hiroshima is that everyone should study the example of Germany's decision to go 100% "zero nuclear" by 2022. I think this is particularly important as the global climate summit is proceeding in Paris, and countries are talking about their commitments to cut fossil fuel use, and to find alternatives.

As I've learned more about the situation in Germany, I've come to understand that three factors have played a big part in this outcome: the threat posed by the big powers, soul-searching within a very "bourgeoise" society, and organizing.


"Kill the people and leave the buildings standing"

Germany: caught in the middle
... between massive US and USSR nuclear forces
(Source: Superpower Rivalry p 36)
(retrieved from Sandy's World History blog)

I have a very clear memory of the time when the US was promoting the idea of a "neutron bomb." The idea was that, if the US and the USSR clashed in Europe, the use of atomic weapons would destroy everything. The "solution" was a new type of weapon that would  "kill the people and leave the buildings standing."

The neutron bomb epitomizes for me the larger predicament that Germany has faced in recent decades: atomic weapon-armed superpowers facing each other down, and Germany caught in the middle.

Awareness of this predicament forced Germans to do some real soul-searching. I think it is not unreasonable to compare this to the far-reaching impact of the draft in the US during the Vietnam War: its effects touched everyone in the society.

In addition, I think the neutron bomb concept was a real wake-up call to the fact that there are no good "solutions" that can be engineered by radiation weapons designers. Nuclear weapons is a field in which "brilliant" just means "more deadly."

Step One in Awareness: recognize the magnitude of the threat posed by empires
Kennedy and Khrushchev (and their nuclear weapons) square off
(Cartoon sourced from Vanchai's Modern World History blog)

Finding the inner compass

Growing up in the US as a Lutheran, with German grandparents, I always had tremendous interest in understanding German culture and society.

It is a simple fact that the preponderance of impressions about Germany that a boy growing up in the US in the '60s and '70s had concerned Nazis and WWII. Blame it on Hogan's Heroes, but also TV shows like the oft-rerun segment on Adolf Hitler on Biography, movies like The Sound of Music, The Great Escape and The Guns of Navarone, books we read in school like Diary of a Young Girl and Escape from Warsaw. The single clearest memory of the local library's shelves was the bold swastika on the spine of the mammoth Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. (And that's just the start of a long list of the products of our war-obsessed entertainment, toy, and leisure industry.) Why, even my adorable Volkswagen Beetle had its roots in the Hitler era.

It was an excruciatingly long process for me to learn that there was more to German culture. It was actually when I was in college in the late '70s that I learned in a course with Franklin Ford that Germany had a culture defined by Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Mahler, Strauss, Goethe, Schiller, Kant, Hegel, and many many more. Of course, this didn't completely answer the question for me -- I still couldn't quite see the forest for the trees.

What I eventually came to understand was that Germany was/is a society characterized to a very great degree by the strength of the middle class, by progressive attitudes, by comfortable homes and communities -- in other words, a lot like the small-town life I had experienced in the US! Words like gemütlichkeit -- and by extension mittelstand -- helped me understand an approach to life that is "not too edgy, not too boring ... not too big, not too small ... just right."

1970 time capsule: Brandt and Grass
(Source: Wikipedia)

I have a very distinct memory of reading a book by Günter Grass during the time I was living in Taiwan (1979-80). The book was called From the Diary of a Snail (how's that for a modest avatar?) and it described Grass' activities helping Willy Brandt and others campaign during the German election of 1969. It gave me the impression that the soul of modern Germany lay not in technology, or in wealth, or in culture, but in the need to step back from the heights of experience and surrender to the always more mundane True and Sustainable.

I provide this extended account of my own path in trying to understand Germany in order to say (a) the experience of the members of German society feels to me as if it has enormous relevance (hope?) for the members of US society; (b) there is a discernible path away from distracted by the things of this world and toward consideration of serious choices; and (c) the emergence of a powerful Green Party and progressive movement in Germany in the '80s can be understood.

It is certainly true that the impact of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident and radiation harm to Germans spurred the success of the Greens. But it is interesting to note that other nuclear accidents (Three Mile Island, Fukushima) have not, themselves, given rise to such strong political parties. The overall context is important to consider.

On Feb. 28, Germany's largest anti-nuclear demonstration takes place
against construction of the Brokdorf nuclear plant on the North Sea
coast west of Hamburg. Some 100,000 people face off with 10,000 police
officers. The plant begins operations in October 1986. It is scheduled
to go offline in 2018. (Source: "Nuclear power in Germany: a chronology")

THIS is what a Green Party looks like!

Germany's Green Party

In 2011, Germany decided to close all nuclear reactors by 2022. The process of arriving at that process has had its ups and downs, involving political parties across the spectrum, but I think it is essential to recognize the momentum given to the process -- and to the formation of public opinion -- by Germany's vibrant Green Party.

The Germans also had an anti-nuke party as of 1980, namely the Greens, who carried the concerns of the mass movement into the national parliament, the Bundestag. No other country in the world has had a force so determined and influential in taking on the powerful atomic energy lobby. The Greens emerged out of the New Social Movements of the 1970s, as an alternative to the Social Democrats who were split on the issue of nuclear power. The environmental party entered regional legislatures during the 80s and 90s, and then finally shared in national power in the 1998-2005 “red-green” government. Pushed by the Greens, the government negotiated a compromise with the energy companies to phase out nuclear power over thirty years.

I recommend everyone read "Why Germans Are So Skeptical About Nuclear Energy" by Paul Hockenos on World Policy Blog -- from which the above quote is taken -- for excellent analysis of how the anti-nuclear movement grew in Germany.

"This past weekend, at midnight on Saturday (25.06.2015), the next
shutdown took place: The Grafenrheinfeld power plant in Bavaria has
been removed from the power grid, nearly exactly on schedule.
(Source: "How far along is Germany's nuclear phase-out?" on DW.com)

The struggle continues . . . .


Related posts

Upon returning from the World Nuclear Victims Forum in Hiroshima, I introduced 10 of the post prominent examples of "global hibakusha" about which I learned at the conference.

(See NUCLEAR RADIATION VICTIMS: 10 Dimensions of the #GlobalHibakusha Phenomenon)





The enormous irony is that now one country -- India -- is responding to its past subjugation by the Western imperial program with this hugely self-damaging program, and another country that has struggled with its relationship to the Western imperial program -- Japan -- is doing everything it can to aid and abet.

(See INDIA: Lured into playing the "Great Power" Nuclear Game)

According to the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service, "Illinois is by far the most nuclear state in the United States . . . . Illinois was also home to the first commercial power reactor . . . one of the first commercial power reactors to close prematurely . . . . ComEd’s two large PWR reactors in Zion, IL also had to close prematurely . . . . We also have the first and only commercial storage facility for high level waste . . . Besides the 3 plants which closed prematurely, Illinois currently has eleven operating nukes – far more than any other state . . . etc. etc."

(See Chicago, IL: Zero Carbon AND Zero Nuclear! )

Lady Alba: When Progressive, Antiwar Views Go Viral

Lady Alba may just push me over the edge.

Oh, I'm already in favor of Scottish independence.

I mean I may just move to Scotland.

Lady Alba is proof that we can succeed in using creative resistance to get our progressive, antiwar views into the mainstream discourse.

Rather than try to explain, I'll let you check Lady Alba out for yourself . . . .

Lady Alba, "Nuclear Love"
"We all live in a yellow nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine . . . "

#BBCtrending: Going Gaga for Scottish independence 

"After over 300 years together, is Scotland in a 'Bad Romance' with 

the rest of the UK? That's what Lady Alba thinks. She's become popular 

on social media after her spoof video about Scotland's independence 

referendum went viral. The video re-interprets Lady Gaga's song 

'Bad Romance' to poke fun at supporters of a 'No' vote, who want 

Scotland to remain part of the UK. It has been viewed over 83 thousand 

times on YouTube." 

 Lady Alba on Facebook

 Lady Alba on Twitter 

 Creative resistance: keep it coming!


Related posts

The vote on Scottish independence is trending toward YES! I'm celebrating by taking a look at the activism of people in Scotland against the stationing of Trident nuclear-weapons-equipped submarines in Scotland.

(See We're Rooting for You, Scotland! (Trident NO Scotland YES) )








England might negotiate to obtain lease on the base, so it can stay open. (Some commentators call that unlikely.) England might decide to move the Tridents to a port in England. (But that would require them to create a depot to store the nuclear missiles - a dicey proposition in densely populated areas.)  England might find another country to allow them to base this dangerous cargo; some have suggested France. (Um - hello? France?)

(See YES! to Scotland; No Place for Trident )

Eventually, in large part due to Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, the United States was converted from a country in which a small number of people thought slavery needed to be ended into a country determined to act to end slavery. This literary work took the movement wide, and it took it deep.

Why is a novel an important tool for creative resistance?


(See Creative Resistance 101: Uncle Tom's Cabin )

We're Rooting for You, Scotland! (Trident NO Scotland YES)

Trident NO Scotland YES   tridentploughshares.org

The vote on Scottish independence is trending toward YES! I'm celebrating by taking a look at the activism of people in Scotland against the stationing of Trident nuclear-weapons-equipped submarines in Scotland.

(There is a strong hope that the YES vote on Scottish independence will be followed by a vote to ban the Tridents from Scotland.)

Did you know that activists in Scotland blockaded the Trident base at Faslane for 365 days straight?  I read about it in the excellent book on peace activism and civil disobedience by Rosalie Riegle, Crossing the Line. There's an entire Faslane 365 website where you can learn more.

So . . . in the days ahead . . . 

when you hear #Scotland and #indyref . . . 

think #nonukes and #disarmament!

Protesters covered in "blood" as police look on

TAPESTRY: Faslane 365 - Nonviolent Resistance to Britain's Nuclear Weapons

Protesters being arrested at Faslane nuclear submarine base

COLLAGE: Faslane 365 protest art

Police presence confronts protesters at the gates of Faslane submarine base

DOUBLE-DECKER BUS ADVERT:
"How would U spend £40,000,000,000? Nurses or Nukes? Trident or Trams?"

Mass Demonstration: "Scrap Trident, Fund Human Needs"

This is just a tiny sampling of images from the protests against nuclear weapons in Scotland. Check out the photo section of the Faslane 365 website.

PS - Also check out the Faslane Peace Camp Facebook page, for more creative resistance, like this sculpture by Lavinia, one of the peace campers:

SCULPTURE protesting Trident submarines by Faslane Peace Camp participant

Related posts

England might negotiate to obtain lease on the base, so it can stay open. (Some commentators call that unlikely.) England might decide to move the Tridents to a port in England. (But that would require them to create a depot to store the nuclear missiles - a dicey proposition in densely populated areas.)  England might find another country to allow them to base this dangerous cargo; some have suggested France. (Um - hello? France?)

(See YES! to Scotland; No Place for Trident )


"We all live in a yellow nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine . . . ."

(See Lady Alba: When Progressive, Antiwar Views Go Viral )

How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons?  How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States))


I don't think Alanna and I ever talked about what it must be like to be trying to escape a shower of sparks and hot ash. But she seemed to know that the sparks and hot ash are too important a part of the picture to be left out.


(See The Children Are Waiting )

YES! to Scotland; No Place for Trident

Q: What's the most important thing happening in global security in the next 12 months?

A: The YES vote in Scotland.

Okay, okay, don't feel bad.  It was under my radar, too, at least until I attended the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Prepcom in New York a few weeks ago.  Scots go to the polls on the question of independence on Thursday, September 18, 2014, and there is a possibility they will vote to secede from the United Kingdom.

The outcome is not a foregone conclusion. "A TNS poll on March 25 showed that 42 percent would reject independence, with 28 percent voting "yes" and 28 percent undecided," reported Reuters. But Reuters also reports that Alistair Carmichael, Britain's Secretary of State for Scotland, "warns that the vote could ultimately go for secession."

But wait - what's that got to do with "the most important thing happening in global security in the next 12 months"?

If Scotland secedes, there is a strong likelihood that Scotland would decide to close the Trident submarine base at Faslane, and its accompanying Coulport nuclear missile depot.

"NO ROOM FOR DEBATE: The SNP's stance on Trident was so firm
there could be no negotiation over its removal, said Scotland Office
minister David Mundell." Picture: PA in Herald Scotland

Faslane/Coulport is the only nuclear submarine base in the British Isles.

Now, there is a diversity of opinion about what might happen next.  England might negotiate to obtain lease on the base, so it can stay open. (Some commentators call that unlikely.) England might decide to move the Tridents to a port in England. (But that would require them to create a depot to store the nuclear missiles - a dicey proposition in densely populated areas.)  England might find another country to allow them to base this dangerous cargo; some have suggested France. (Um - hello? France?)

And all of this is happening smack in the runup to the every-5-year Non Proliferation Treaty review conference in May, 2015.  There is already a showdown brewing over the refusal of nuclear states (read: the U.S.) to move swiftly to full disarmament.  The spectre of British Isle de-nuclearization, combined with pushback against nukes coming from America's erstwhile NATO allies in Europe could lend great weight to calls for disarmament.

I'll be writing more soon about what I learned about anti-nuclear momentum building among the governments of Northern Europe.  In the meantime, think:

YES! to Scotland

No Place for Trident

Read more about the "Yes" campaign at YesScotland.net.

Read more about "No place for Trident" at the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.


Related posts

The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) has filed unprecedented lawsuits against all nine nuclear-armed nations for their failure to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament, as required under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The suits were filed against all nine nations at the International Court of Justice, with an additional complaint against the United States filed in U.S. Federal District Court.

 (See Now HERE'S an "Asia Pivot" I Can Believe In! (Marshall Islands Sues Nuclear "Haves") )

How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons?  How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States))

Elaine Scarry demonstrates that the power of one leader to obliterate millions of people with a nuclear weapon - a possibility that remains very real even in the wake of the Cold War - deeply violates our constitutional rights, undermines the social contract, and is fundamentally at odds with the deliberative principles of democracy.

(See Reviews of "Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom" by Elaine Scarry)











I'm grateful to my friend, Jim Barton, for framing the problem in a way that is adequately broad, and yet contains a measure of hope.  It's about the future, and whether we have one -- or can construct one -- he said.  Young people today are asking: Do I have an economic future? Does the planet have a future? Will (nuclear) war extinguish everybody's future?

(See A FUTURE: Can we construct one? )










More related links

September 14, 2014: Stephen Phelan, "A Better Nation: Scotland’s Divisive Independence Vote" in The Boston Review: "At this point, perhaps I should also disclose that I have always been unnerved and affronted by the storage of the United Kingdom’s entire nuclear arsenal at the Faslane naval base on the River Clyde, just twenty-five miles from Glasgow. Even after devolution, all matters of defense are reserved to Westminster, and the Trident submarine missile system has stayed in Scotland over the objections of a massive majority. If I still lived here this issue alone might make me vote Yes; the SNP’s outline for independence makes an emphatic point of removing Trident missiles from Scottish sovereign territory, thus forcing the U.K. government to find another home for those weapons, or to scrap them altogether, which seems unlikely to the point of fantasy and hinges on the faint hope that no suitable alternative bases can be found in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. To me, it seems a relatively straightforward question of morality and democracy, tinged with personal politics and memories of childhood nightmares. For others, it is more a question of jobs." (emphasis added)

September 15, 2014: Bill Kidd and Erika Simpson, "Britain’s Wee Nuclear Problem," on the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation website: "Even if not enough Scots vote Yes to win independence, their voting patterns could provide an opportunity for Britons as a whole to rethink their approach to nuclear weapons. . . . In the face of such opposition from Scotland — even in the possible wake of a decided No vote — it will remain difficult for the UK government to continue its absurd and costly pursuit of renewing the Trident nuclear weapons system against the backdrop of international negotiations to ban nuclear weapons. Scotland’s vote this Thursday could go either way, but it is already sure to push Mother England to overcome her Cold War thinking about security by undermining traditional arguments in favour of maintaining these weapons of mass destruction." (emphasis added)

Crimean War? Crimean Showdown? or Crimean Mediation? It's Time for Americans to Get Some New Vocabulary

An initiative has been begun to propagate the idea that "war can be abolished." This is not to deny that people disagree about things, but only to say that no thinking person believes, anymore, that the desired way to settle disagreements is through force. (See WorldBeyondWar.org)

Recent developments on Russia's border give us a good place to test this proposition.

See Wikipedia, "Russians in Ukraine"

The status quo involves force or the threat of force to influence the alignment of peoples and regions with one state or another.  Crimea is the crisis du jour, but South Ossetia and Abhkazia were a few years back, and Ukraine looks like it's just around the corner. (See the Miami Herald, "First Ukrainian soldier killed as Putin calls Kiev 'mother of all Russian cities'")

Conveniently, a large military alliance -- NATO -- bristling with weapons, has announced itself ready to step in and contest annexations of territories by Russia. For NATO, the measure of resolvability of conflict is firepower.

Most of us are ignorant about the peoples and regions surrounding Russia, and the sentiment in those places. We don't begin to have an idea about the history. I know that I didn't know the first thing about Crimea before the current crisis -- except that it was part of the phrase The Crimean War. As I sit here right now, I'm not clear on all the arguments for and against Crimea being part of Russia vs. being part of Ukraine. But what I am clear on is that I have passively allowed the U.S. government to adopt the posture that (a) the U.S. gets a say in how the question is resolved; and (b) the U.S. gets to back its position up with force. 

Columnist Bob Koehler wrote today that it's time for citizens -- ordinary people like you and me -- to get involved in demanding a different way, building on a statement by the International Peace Bureau:

The statement cites a plea by Pax Christi International “to religious leaders and all the faithful in Ukraine, as well as in the Russian Federation and in other countries involved in the political tensions” – I would simply include in this plea every concerned human being – “to act as mediators and bridge-builders, bringing people together instead of dividing them, and to support nonviolent ways to find peaceful and just solutions to the crisis.”

The idea that the world we create at a personal level can influence if not determine the sort of world we create at the national and international level seems naïve, perhaps, unless one looks at the default alternative, consigned to us by the media: that our role is to be a spectator in the global wrestling arena.

Dialogue and diplomacy are extensions of mediation and bridge-building at the personal level. Perhaps if such work were regarded as a citizen’s responsibility, it could not be so easily dismissed in the reporting of global affairs – nor could war be declared by a few absurdly powerful leaders, with the rest of the world simply following along without choice and reaping the consequences.

(See Bob Koehler, "Make It Hurt")

See Wikipedia, "Russians in the Baltic states"

In other words, we need to become advocates for a whole different way of resolving the disagreements over the borders of European and Russia regions.  We're going to have to develop the courage to say, "I didn't know that," and "I need to understand this better," and even, "I guess I was wrong," and "I need to urge you to talk about this." What we can't do is continue to just throw up our hands and say, "Let the military sort it out."

There is a distinctly American attitude that says, in effect, "I'm much too important to spend my time working patiently to resolve conflict with you" and "Don't bore me with a history lesson" and even "You're pissing me off and so it's fine with me if you get hurt." And from that a thousand military budgets have been spawned.

But American "annoyance" can no longer be an excuse for military action.

And to bring about change, we're going to have to commit ourselves to some hard work. Peace work.

I recommend a good place to start is with first principles.

Do you believe the desired way to settle disagreements is through force?

Do you believe others are able to see things as you do?

What is stopping us from agreeing that "war can be abolished"?

Who can you share this message with today?

Related posts

Many people will argue that it was only because the U.S. made a threat of force that Syria offered to enter into an agreement on chemical weapons. The sequence of events certainly suggests some relationship between the two.

(See "OR ELSE!" (What the U.S. threat of force against Syria teaches us) )

With NATO coming to Chicago, how were we, as a faith community, to engage with this historic event?  Could St. Luke’s Logan Square be a place where we can work together to understand NATO, militarism, and how conflicts can be resolved without violence?

(See NATO: A Mighty Fortress is Our God? in the St. Luke's Messenger.)






Call me a demanding citizen, but I think the President should get off his butt and go talk to the leader of Russia.  (Yes, Putin.)  It's his job.

(See Obama: Go to Moscow!)