|
Creating
a Cooperative World
By
Alan Shapiro
To the Teacher:
Jonathan
Schell, a writer and teacher, has for many years provided insightful
and lucid analyses of the human behavior imperiling our planet--and
he has suggested ways of thinking and acting to bring about positive
change. The student readings below, which are based on Schell's
book The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will
of the People (2003), offer opportunities for students to
discuss, learn about, and act upon ideas for a cooperative and
more peaceful world.
Introduction
For
many years Jonathan Schell has been writing and teaching about
our violent world but also envisioning possibilities for positive
change. In The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and
the Will of the People (2003), Schell demonstrates that while
the twentieth century reached unparalleled heights of violence
in conventional and nuclear warfare, it also included many powerful,
successful, nonviolent movements for social, economic, and political
change. Through nonviolent civic action and the creation of international
"structures of cooperative power," Schell sees the basis
for lasting peace in the twenty-first century. The following readings
provide an overview of key elements in his thinking.
Student
Reading 1:
Two
Vital Twentieth Century Lessons
"Totalitarian
rule and total war each in its own way carried violence to its
limits," Jonathan Schell writes of the twentieth century.
"Violence was old, but total violence--violence that, as
in nuclear conflict, can kill without limit…was new….
And war, when it laid hold of its ever more powerful instruments
of destruction, was no longer war but annihilation, and annihilation
was as unlike war as it was unlike peace." (The Unconquerable
World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People)
In
Schell's view, World War I (1914-1918) demonstrated the failure
of the "balance of power" system and set in motion "a
spiral of violence whose effects are still felt today." A
global depression, the rise of Hitler and Stalin and totalitarian
societies, particularly in Germany and the Soviet Union, led directly
to World War II (1939-1945), the horrors of burning cities, incinerated
bodies, Nazi extermination camps, the Soviet gulag, and U.S. atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A third
"global struggle"--the Cold War between superpowers,
the United States and the Soviet Union, and their allies--dominated
most of the last half of the twentieth century and threatened
a nuclear holocaust until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
The twenty-first century had hardly begun when 9/11 "drove
home a truth that the world should never have forgotten but did:
that in our age of weapons of mass destruction all buildings,
all cities, all nations, all people can likewise be reduced to
ash in an instant."
But,
as Schell adds, the twentieth century provided "another,
complementary lesson, less conspicuous than the first but just
as important….It is that forms of nonviolent action can serve
effectively in the place of violence at every level of political
affairs." Schell cites these examples: "the promise
of Mohandas K. Gandhi's resistance to the British Empire in India,
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s civil-rights movement in the United
States, the nonviolent movements in Eastern Europe and in Russia
that brought down the Soviet Union, and the global success of
democracy in its long contest with the totalitarian challenge…."
The Congress Party in India adopted Gandhi's program in 1920 to
combat Britain's long rule of their country. "The English
have not taken India," Gandhi said, "we have given it
to them." He also said, "I believe and everybody must
grant that no Government can exist for a single moment without
the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and if people
withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the Government will
come to a standstill."
The
British had their army and their guns. Gandhi and the Indian movement
he led had "satyagraha," a Sanskrit word impossible
to translate. It called for nonviolent action involving a refusal
to cooperate with laws regarded as unjust and an open acceptance
of the consequences. It played a major role in bringing India
independence.
In
the case of the U.S. civil rights movement, Southern sheriffs
had high-powered hoses, clubs and guns, but Martin Luther King's
nonviolent strategy brought African-Americans civil rights long
denied, among them the vote.
Schell
also cites as examples of successful and mostly nonviolent action
in the twentieth century the overthrow of the Soviet Union's satellite
regimes in Eastern Europe and then the Soviet Union itself. In
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, says Schell, political activists'
strategy was to "bypass the (totalitarian) government and
tackle social problems directly" by setting up independent
institutions and building a civil society. "Our freedom begins
with ourselves," Polish activist Adam Michnik wrote, and
in Poland that meant help for families of workers jailed by the
government, underground publications, a "flying university"
in people's apartments, boycotts, and social organizations of
all kinds. This activity helped build a movement led by the independent
union federation Solidarity, which was later elected to lead Poland.
When
Michnik and his colleagues began their struggle, "the iron
law of the world dictated that revolution must be violent because
violence was the foundation of power," Schell writes. "When
they were finished and state after repressive state had been dissolved
with little or no use of violence, a new law of the world had
been written, and it read: Nonviolent action can be a source of
revolutionary power, which erased the (totalitarian) regime from
within…and lays the foundation for a new state."
Schell
writes that all these movements believed "that one should
withdraw cooperation from destructive institutions;… that
means are more important than ends; that crimes shouldn't be committed
today for the sake of a better world tomorrow; that violence brutalizes
the user as well as his victim…."
"Time
after time," says Schell, "the power of nonviolent action
showed itself, and time after time led to democratic government."
He cites these examples: Greece, 1974; Spain, 1975; Argentina,
1982; the Philippines, 1986; South Korea, 1986; Chile, 1989. The
most dramatic and powerful of these late-twentieth century civic
movements for nonviolent change came in South Africa. There, a
sustained mass movement led in 1990 to the release of movement
leader Nelson Mandela, who had been imprisoned for 20 years. Soon
afterwards, Mandela became the black president of a country that
had had only white rulers and apartheid governments for a century.
Writes
Schell: "The century of total violence was, however discreetly,
also a century of nonviolent action."
For
discussion
1.
What questions do students have about the reading? How might they
be answered?
2.
Schell writes of the twentieth century: "Violence was old,
but total violence…was new." What do you understand
him to mean?
3.
What does Schell view as two vital lessons of the twentieth century?
Do you view them as "vital"? Why or why not?
4.
How do you understand each of the Gandhi quotes? What was Gandhi's
strategy to achieve India's freedom from the British empire? What
is the power of this strategy? Of the strategies of Eastern Europeans
to achieve freedom from the Soviet empire?
5.
How is "nonviolent action… a source of revolutionary
power which erased the (totalitarian) regime from within"?
6.
A key principle of those who believe in the power of nonviolent
resistance to injustice is that "violence brutalizes the
user as well as the victim." Do you agree? What evidence
would support your view?
Student
Reading 2:
Has the U.S. Gone "from Liberty to Force"?
Schell
asks: Will the nations of the world, and especially the United
States, the only superpower, continue on the old path, the devastating
twentieth century path, of force and coercion? Or will it move
into a new one marked by cooperation and consent?
In
September 2002 the Bush administration released "The National
Security Strategy of the United States." A key passage declares:
"While
the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support
of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone,
if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting
preemptively….We must deter and defend against the threat
before it is unleashed….the President has no intention of
allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the
United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more
than a decade ago. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade
potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes
of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States."
Schell's
view of the Bush strategy: "A policy of unchallengeable military
domination over the earth, accompanied by a unilateral right to
overthrow other governments by military force, is an imperial…policy.
It marks a decisive choice of force and coercion over cooperation
and consent as the mainstay of the American response to the disasters
of the time….Any imperial plan in the twenty-first century
tilts against what have so far proved to be the two most powerful
forces of the modern age: the spread of scientific knowledge and
the resolve of peoples to reject foreign rule and take charge
of their own destinies." It is "the path of arrogance
and ignorance" and will contribute to "catastrophe."
The
U.S. attack on Iraq that began on March 19, 2003, was a dramatic
example of this new strategy in action. After swift military action,
regime change, and U.S. occupation of Iraq, its consequences after
four years with no end in sight have included:
- a
Sunni-based insurgency
- terrorists
being attracted to Iraq and the creation of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia
- a
civil war between Sunnis and Shiites along with ethnic cleansing
- death
for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and more than 3,200 American
troops
- maiming
of tens of thousands of American troops and countless Iraqis
- the
abuse and torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in
Iraq
- the
creation of 4 million Iraqi refugees, about half of whom have
fled their country
- loss
of support for the war among the American people
- worldwide
growth of mistrust, often hatred, of the United States
- a
Bush administration decision to send more troops to Iraq
"Any
imperial plan in the twenty-first century," Schell writes,
"tilts against what have so far proved to be the two most
powerful forces of the modern age: the spread of scientific knowledge
and the resolve of peoples to reject foreign rule and take charge
of their own destinies."
Schell
asks: "Do American leaders imagine that the people of the
world, having overthrown the territorial empires of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries, are ready to bend the knee to an American
overlord in the twenty-first? Do they imagine that allies are
willing to become subordinates? Have they forgotten that people
hate to be dominated by force?.... Could it be the destiny of
the American republic, unable to resist the allure of an imperial
delusion, to flare out in a blaze of pointless mass destruction?"
For
discussion
1.
What questions do students have about the reading? How might
they be answered?
2.
What do you regard as the essential ingredients of the Bush
administration's National Security Strategy? Why does Schell regard
it as "imperial"? Do you agree? Why or why not?
3.
Was the U.S. invasion of Iraq an example of this strategy in action?
Why or why not? Can you cite significant consequences other than
those listed in the reading?
4.
Schell views the strategy harshly. Do you agree with him? Why
or why not?
5.
Why do you suppose Schell views "the spread of scientific
knowledge" and "the resolve of people to reject foreign
rule and take charge of their own destinies" as "the
two most powerful forces of the modern age"? What evidence
is there for each one? Can you cite evidence that any other force
is more powerful?
6.
How do you suppose that Bush administration leaders, including
the president, would answer Schell's questions in the final paragraph?
How would you assess their answers?
Student Reading 3:
Toward a Peaceful World
Schell
writes that "the days when humanity can hope to save itself
from force with force are over. None of the structures of violence--not
the balance of power, not the balance of terror, not empire--can
any longer rescue the world from the use of violence, now grown
apocalyptic. Force can lead only to more force, not to peace.
Only a turn to structures of cooperative power can offer hope."
There
is another path, and it leads toward a cooperative world. "The
agenda of a program to build a cooperative world would be to choose
and foster cooperative means at every level of political life."
Among
many possible specific plans, Schell selects four, not necessarily
because they are comprehensive or the most important, but because
"all bear directly on the choice between cooperation and
coercion, and seem to me to be timely, realistic," and build
"on foundations that already exist."
1.
Abolition of nuclear weapons
"An
agreement to abolish nuclear arms and all other weapons of mass
destruction is essential for "any sane or workable international
system in the twenty-first century….No tolerable policy can
be founded upon the permanent institutionalization of a capacity
and intention to kill millions of innocent people."
The
"root of the nuclear predicament" is not nuclear hardware,
Schell argues, but "the knowledge that underlies the hardware."
Abolition of nuclear arms, unfortunately, cannot mean abolition
of the knowledge that created them. But it must mean a system
of rigorous inspection. Elements of it already exist through the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
Violation
of an abolition agreement would be very difficult, even unlikely.
Experts agree that "a maximal regime of inspection"
would make it hard for anyone to secretly construct a nuclear
arsenal--though it does not eliminate the possibility, especially
before an agreement takes effect. The "maintenance of a nuclear
arsenal is highly complicated, requiring many hands and minds,"
says Schell. Such a secret would be "as hard to keep as the
secret of the bomb itself." The Manhattan Project "secret"
quickly leaked to the Soviet Union in the 1940s.
If
a violator threatened the world, other nations "would be
free to build and threaten to use their own nuclear arsenals in
response, in effect deterring the violator." But as Schell
points out, "Nuclear powers have repeatedly fought, and even
lost, conventional wars against small, non nuclear forces"
without ever using nuclear weapons. This was the case for the
U.S. and the Soviets in Vietnam and in Afghanistan. Why? "Isn't
it conceivable that heads of state are reluctant to use nuclear
weapons simply because they don't want to kill millions of innocent
people in cold blood at a self-stroke?"
"The
rigorous global inspection system of an abolition agreement would
be the ideal instrument to choke at its source the danger that
terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction," Schell
maintains. Terrorists might still be able to create them, but
"the problem might be 98 percent solved, which is perhaps
the most that can be hoped for."
2.
International intervention in wars of self-determination to promote
shared or limited sovereignty.
Popular
government in the United States and elsewhere has demonstrated
"that when power is cooperative rather than coercive--based
on action willingly concerted rather than compelled--then, in
the domestic sphere, at least, it does not have to be indivisible.
It can be federated; it can be divided among branches of government
and localities."
Europe,
where national sovereignty was born, has created the European
Union. As Helmut Schmidt, former chancellor of Germany commented,
it "marks the first time in the history of mankind that nation-states
that differ so much from each other nevertheless…have voluntarily
decided to throw in their lot together."
"Formulas
for shared or limited sovereignty," Schell writes, "are
also a necessary part of any solution to most wars of national
self-determination." Northern Ireland, where "divided
structures of power are being used to try to end a conflict,"
is one example. Other places where dual sovereignty might provide
solutions for longstanding conflicts include Sri Lanka, where
the Tamil Tigers want an independent state in the north; and Jerusalem,
where Israelis and Palestinians contend for territory and religious
buildings.
The
Kurdish people live in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria under the
sovereignty of others. Their need for sovereignty, says Schell,
might addressed by granting every Kurd "two internationally
recognized statuses--one as a citizen of a state, the other as
a member of a nation." As state citizens, for example, Kurds
would have "all the classical rights of individual liberty;
as a nation, Kurds would control their own schools and speak their
own language. One nation then could overlap many states, and vice
versa." A similar solution might be possible in Canada for
Quebec's culturally French people.
3.
Enforcement of a prohibition on crimes against humanity
Schell
envisions "an international community that fundamentally
relies on consent and the cooperative power consent creates, but
nevertheless reserves the right to resort to force in certain
well-defined, limited circumstances….Ideally, force would
play the restricted policing role it does in a democratic state.
I say 'ideally,' because if an international police force is to
be legitimate there must exist an international order whose legitimacy
is generally recognized, and this is just what is largely missing
in the world today."
Developing
this legitimacy on "a few selected internationally agreed-upon
principles" will not end war instantly. But it will move
us toward a more peaceful world. One such principle on which there
is already widespread agreement is "the obligation to prevent
and punish crimes against humanity." After World War II,
the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders responsible for atrocities
established a precedent. More recently, a special international
tribunal tried Slobodan Milosevic, the former president of Yugoslavia,
for crimes against humanity.
The
International Criminal Court defines these crimes "as acts,
including murder, torture, rape, forced disappearance, and persecution,
when committed" systematically "against a defined group,
whether ethnic, religious, racial, or national."
When
a person kills another person, "the order of the national
community is violated. When a state kills a people, the order
of the international community is violated….(and the state
forfeits) its claim to represent them and opens itself to international
intervention." In defending his order of genocidal attacks
against the people of Kosovo, Milosevic cited the principle of
national sovereignty. An appropriate answer to him: "How
can you call yourself the sovereign representative of a people
that you are seeking to destroy? Your genocide nullifies your
sovereignty."
In
calling for collective rights for peoples, Schell sees them as
"increasingly protected by a coherent body of law."
It would include the "negative right" not to be exterminated
as well as the "positive right" to self-determination.
4.
Foundation of a democratic league
The
United Nations includes dictatorships. The NATO alliance consists
of democracies, but its sole purpose is military. The European
Union is also made up of democracies but focuses on economic concerns.
In contrast, a democratic league would be committed to freedom.
Says
Schell: "The simplest and most obvious direct contribution
that such a league could make to international peace would be
to pledge to resolve disputes among its members" without
going to war."
Associated
with this contribution would be a league's support for 1) elimination
of weapons of mass destruction; 2) reductions in sales of conventional
weapons to other countries; 3) efforts to restrain or end wars
of self-determination; 4) anti-imperialism.
While
only a people can create democracy through their "action
and consent," a democratic league would also "give assistance
to one another and to peoples already seeking to found or preserve
democracy."
"Member
nations would jointly resolve not to create or support repressive
regimes, not to use armed force merely to advance commercial or
other national interests, and in general to address international
problems on a cooperative basis."
For
discussion
1.
What questions do students have about the reading? How might they
be answered?
2.
Schell sees the choice for the U.S. and the world as between a)
the continued use of force and coercion in international affairs,
which he views as capable of leading only to more force and coercion,
and b) a new path of nonviolence and cooperation "at every
level of political life." Do you agree? Why or why not? Why
does Schell think the continued choice of force and coercion can
lead only to catastrophe? Do you agree? Why or why not?
3.
Schell asserts that "any sane or workable international system"
requires the abolition of nuclear weapons. Do you agree or disagree?
Why?
4.
Through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, most of the
nations with nuclear weapons, including the U.S., have agreed
to eliminate them, but have done nothing about this commitment.
Why not? If you have no idea, how might you find out?
5.
What do you think Schell means by the "nuclear predicament"?
How do you understand his view that it is the "knowledge
that underlies the hardware" of nuclear weapons that is at
the root of the "nuclear predicament"?
6.
Why does Schell view a violation of nuclear abolition as "unlikely"?
Do you agree? Why or why not?
7.
Schell sees possible solutions to conflicts in such places
as Jerusalem and Canada. What basic principle is involved? Why
was it crucial to the formation of the United States?
8.
In the suggested solution to the Kurds' desire for self-determination,
what is the difference between being a citizen of a state and
being a citizen of a nation? Why might such a solution solve the
Kurds' problem?
9.
Why does Schell view the use of force, if necessary, by the international
community in punishing crimes against humanity as a step toward
a more peaceful world?
10.
What might be one significant benefit of a democratic league?
For
writing
1.
Write a reflective essay in which you discuss your attitude
toward a nonviolent strategy for political, economic and social
change.
2.
Schell is very critical of what he views as a United States movement
toward hegemony, toward the attainment of imperial supremacy over
all other nations. Write an essay in which you support or disagree
with Schell's view. Cite specific evidence for your own.
3.
Write an essay in which you discuss in detail the actions of someone
you know personally who has made a positive contribution to the
betterment of your family, neighborhood, or city. What did this
person aim to accomplish? What were some of his/her key acts?
How would you describe his/her behavior?
For
further inquiry
1.
Select for investigation one of the nonviolent movements cited
in the first reading. Begin by framing a question to guide your
inquiry. (The teacher may want to see "Thinking Is Questioning"
and "The Plagiarism Perplex," which are available on
this website, for detailed suggestions on an inquiry process that
begins with questions.)
2.
The Nuclear Posture Review of 2002 states the current U.S. policy
on nuclear weapons. What are its key elements? Why does the U.S.
regard its continued possession of nuclear weapons as essential?
Consider also, for example, the following recent report: The head
of the U.S. Strategic Command, General James Cartwright, told
the House Armed Services Committee that the U.S. continues to
need nuclear weapons " to respond promptly to globally dispersed
or fleeting threats." Also necessary, the general said, is
the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The U.S. has some 6,000 nuclear
weapons. The Pentagon wishes to replace them with a "new
generation" of warheads. (www.washingtonpost.com, 3/10/07)
3.
Study some contested territory--Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Kosovo,
Jerusalem. Using Schell's approach to issues of self-determination,
propose a solution.
4.
The Nuremberg trials after World War II were a first international
effort to punish crimes against humanity. After making a preliminary
investigation of what was involved in these trials, frame a question
for a more specific inquiry.
5.
Sales of conventional weapons are a huge international business.
What is the U.S. role in this business? After an introductory
investigation, frame a question for a more specific inquiry.
6.
Study one of the successful nonviolent, democratic revolutions
cited in the first reading. After getting an overview of the revolution,
frame a question for a more specific inquiry.
Read
The Unconquerable World. Then frame a question for further
inquiry.
For
citizenship
Creating
a more cooperative world will take the work not just of governments
but also of ordinary people, including students, who come together
to develop and promote ideas as well as to press their government
to enact them.
Have
students name any individuals in their school or community who
have acted and made a difference for the better. What was the
problem? What did he or she do? How? What difference did their
work make?
Consider
with the class the suggestions that Schell makes. Might there
be one on which students would like to develop a project for change?
If there is one, how might they act on it? Some questions to consider:
1.
What, exactly, is the project? Define it carefully.
2.
Who will work on it? Doing what?
3.
What does the group hope to accomplish? Perhaps begin by creating
a vision statement.
4.
What will be the work plan? What do students need to find
out? How? Might there be opposition? Why? What strategies should
students develop to respond to opposition?
5.
What will each student do? Where and when will students meet?
How will they evaluate progress?
If
there is broad interest in ideas for creating a more cooperative
world, but no specific one that students favor, perhaps organizing
a school club on the subject might be another approach. What are
the school rules for forming a club? Who will do what is necessary
to create one? What will be the purposes of the club? When and
where will it meet?
This
lesson was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside
Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome
your comments. Please email author Alan Shapiro at: ashapiro7@comcast.net.
Back
to top
|
