The debate on disarmament is highly polarized. Advocates of militarism and
disarmament endlessly repeat their own arguments and dismiss the others,
without impact. To escape this fruitless exchange we must have a better
understanding of the structure and dynamics of the debate.
Rational arguments for Disarmament are met with powerful negative reactions.
There are two main sources of opposition to the idea of Disarmament. The
first stems from an economic-institutional-structural system which promotes
Miltarism or what I call Military Fundamentalism, and its extension, Nuclear
Fundamentalism, a belief in the threat or
use of violent force as the only way to address conflict. The second source
of opposition is an emotional-psychological response to the removal of
defenses which, from a militaristic viewpoint renders us vulnerable to
enemies, and offers no alternative. Both are perceived as taking away
something valuable without offering a satisfactory replacement. If advocates
of Disarmament could reframe our case in a way that addresses these
fundamental concerns, we might have a more constructive dialogue.
1) The first source of opposition to Disarmament is shaped by the interests
of an interconnected web of systems including the military, the
multi-billion dollar defense industry, politicians and the mass media, with multilayered
systems of identities, and power relations. The system is committed to its
own survival, and is fueled by a world view focused on the existence of
enemies, the second source of opposition, which will be addressed in more
depth. Briefly, perhaps the most enlightened way to address these vested
economic systemic interests would be to explore conversion of technology,
perhaps to space tourism (thanks to Dennis Tito) and environmental
technologies as described in a recent paper by the Institute for Policy.
Studies.
2) The preoccupation of the image of the enemy has been used deliberately,
and very effectively, to fuel the arms race and a militaristic worldview.
The world is seen in terms of Us and Them, Black
and White, Strong and Weak, Victors and Vanquished. Weapons and the threat
or use of force are unquestioned as the only dependable foundation for national
security, which maintains and endless spiral of military buildup and
escalation, increasing our vulnerability in the name of assuring our
security.
Military fundamentalists invoke the image of dangerous dehumanized enemies,
first the Evil Empire, now replaced by the Rogue States entirely unlike ourselves. We
are good, they are bad. Our motives are noble and defensive, theirs are
hostile and aggressive. To confront such enemies we have to be strong and
militarily prepared, even if the strength of the enemy is negligible. When
our enemies react with hostility to rhetoric and threats which they see as
humiliating and intimidating, it feeds a system of self-fulfilling paranoia,
provoking and magnifying fear on all sides.It is a psychological fact that people are most
dangerous when they are afraid, so acting out of "common sense" tends to
make things worse.The way to be more secure is to make your enemy more secure. In
our Global culture, "National Security" is now an oxymoron. There is
universal security or no security.
The idea of Disarmament elicits responses like “What about Iraq? What
about North Korea? because it does not answer the question of how to deal
with enemies (real, imagined, or provoked). Our usual arguments that
armaments cost too much, that we could better spend the money on education
and health care are irrelevant in the face of a terrifying enemy. Likewise,
the case for illegality and immorality of nuclear weapons have not been
successful enough, because they don't address vulnerability and the
fear of being defenseless. People will do things that are immoral and
illegal if they thught it would save lives.
The whole disarmament approach needs to be rethought if we are to have an
impact.Disarmament itself does not answer this question. Disarmament is a
natural consequence of the answer.
In psychological terms, Disarmament is experienced as a process of giving up
something we have: armaments and the security they are supposed to provide.
Everyone naturally resists the idea of giving up something, especially if it
is linked to security. Disarmament will not be acceptable to most people
unless we answer the question of how to deal with existing threats to our
security. To move towards disarmament we need to provide a new paradigm.
Disarmament is about ending the old paradigm. To gain wider appeal, we need
to articulate the new paradigm in a way that better answers the questions of
real security.
At present, public discourse recognizes only two categories of response to
external threat: doing nothing, or military action. We need a third way. We
do not have a concept of nonmilitary ways to solve problems, although there is a well developed
body of research and observation in tension reduction, fear reduction and
conflict transformation. Currently the US spends about $340 billion on the
military, $1 billion on the State department, and $12 million on the US
Institute of Peace.
Violence prevention methods do not exist as policy options. Yet, as Richard
Wendell Fogg, Director of the Center for the Study of Conflict, says in his
booklet, Peacemaking, nonviolent uses of force including combinations of
political, economic, psychological, moral, spiritual, intellectual and
educational forms of force can be far more powerful in stopping violence
even after it has started, in solving problems and improving conflict situations
in the long term than use of violence and domination, which causes great
harm and often creates more problems. Fogg says the message of
"Replacing War"; is more powerful than that of
"abolishing war", which it does, in effect.
David Hartsough and Mel Duncan have proposed a Global Nonviolent Peace
Force, which would train people to go into areas of conflict to help reduce
tensions, negotiate nonviolent solutions and bring peace. Unlike
disarmament, such an option would be broadly attractive, especially as it has the
potential to call forth heroic and powerful leaders.
Such approaches have received little attention from governments or civil
society in terms of funding, organization, training, and support. Perhaps
disarmament activists should concentrate more on emphasizing "a better game
than war."