Areas for Exploration

Part 1: What should be a pacifists response to a situation of on-going violence, when innocent people are threatened, harmed or their rights denied?

1. What is a pacifist, i.e. – what are the beliefs, testimonies and actions that make one a pacifist?
2. Does a pacifist draw a moral distinction between violence and force?
3. If the use of force is acceptable to suppress aggression, what principles govern the use of that force?
4. If force is unacceptable, what does the pacifist advocate in a situation of on-going violence?

Part 2: What should be the policies and actions of the United States Government:

1. As the occupying power in Iraq?
2. To help resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
3. In response to Al-Qaida and international terrorism?
4. Toward Iran or North Korea?

Part 3: What do Quakers have to say in the present national debate and how can they make their voices heard?

1. What do we say to the American people, answering concerns for their safety and the safety of their country?
2. Do we have a rebuttal to Scott Simon’s views which are expressed persuasively and articulately?
3. How do we speak truth to power, i.e. – to our Government?
4. How can we get the media to report on our views?
5. What activities are inappropriate for Friends in witnessing for peace?
6. What are we called to do as individual Friends?
7. What are we called to do in our Meetings?

The Pacifist Dilemma

Hugh Barbour and J. William Frost, in their book The Quakers, point out that substantial numbers of Quaker men served in the Union Army during the American Civil War. In Indiana, a state with approximately 4500 military-aged men, 1,198 served, 69 as officers. Only 22 were drafted, the rest volunteered. An additional 2,170 were drafted but were excused from service because of conscientious objection. Presumably, the other men not counted were never called nor volunteered. Of the 1,198 who served, only 29 asked for non-combatant service; the rest bore arms. 236 Friends died in the war. The 20% rate of Quaker fatalities well exceeded the 12% rate for the entire Union Army.

Why did they fight, in spite of two centuries of peace testimony? Perhaps for some it was peer pressure, to demonstrate one’s manly courage or patriotism. It is probable, however, that most volunteered because the Civil War presented the one best, perhaps only chance, to end slavery in the United States.

When they returned from the war, they presented a dilemma for their meetings. Different meetings had different reactions to the violation of the peace testimony. 148 men were disowned. Under threat of disownment, 220 others "condemned their conduct" and were restored to their meetings. 596 were welcomed back into meetings without censure.

Slavery was ended. The war took the lives of 335,000 Union and 258,000 Confederate soldiers. Over one in four southern soldiers never came home. The war devastated an entire region. Southern animosity toward the North was well in evidence 100 years later during the civil rights years. The war did not end racism and legally slavery was replaced by segregation. But slavery was ended.

If asked to name a just war and if Quakers would or could name any, they would probably admit to the American Civil War and World War II. Certainly, one can only read with horror a biography of Adolf Hitler, or a history of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (the Nazi), or count the 6 million-plus dead in the concentration camps. The horror is intensified when one realizes Hitler had plans for an additional 20 million or so Jews and Slavs. There were 359 concentration camps, but it is the six killing camps – Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec, Lublin, Kulmhof and Birkenau – that distilled all the horror of Nazism into a mere five square miles of land.

In a century when it is probable that over 100 million people died in war, World War II took well over half, about 54 million lives. It also took the lives of more non-combatants than combatants. Germany lost more civilians in the bombing of Dresden than soldiers in the Ardennes Forest (the Battle of the Bulge).

Josef Stalin was one of the "good guys". Yet if one reads the biographies of Hitler and Stalin, Stalin was the more frightening figure, and sent more people to their deaths.

World War II is viewed in today by the victorious powers as an example of heroic self-sacrifice enshrined in national pride, a triumph of civilization over barbarism. An American best-seller was Tom Brokaw’s The Greatest Generation.

The many wars of the former Yugoslavia have played out on national television news here in the US, a chance to see the horror of war in the safety of one’s home. But few events of those "ethnic cleansing" wars evoke a more visceral horror than the siege of Sarajevo. I still remember a piece of 6 o’clock news reportage during the siege. A journalist and his film crew were with a Serbian battery on a rise looking down on the city. They were firing at a hospital which looked to be about three stories high. The roof of the hospital was roughly at the same elevation of their battery, and in the perhaps-distorted perspective of the camera the hospital looked to be only two or three blocks away. As the camera rolled, the three-man Serb gun crew fired a round from a howitzer, and a puff of dust erupted from the masonry wall of the hospital, leaving a gouge but not a complete, through-the-wall hole. They fired a second round, and another puff of dust blew up. They fired a third round which traveled through a window with an explosion that blew a blast of debris from the opening. The gunners were elated, pausing for a moment to celebrate, clapping each other on the shoulders and backs, congratulating themselves for their marksmanship. Then they deliberately and professionally resumed their business. I watched the action with mounting fury. When NATO subsequently intervened to push the Serb army back, my emotional attitude was the vengeful feeling that "the Serbs have to be punished".

The siege of Sarajevo becomes the archetype of the pacifist dilemma. After preventative diplomacy has failed - if it was ever tried in the first place - after the bullets start flying, after the innocent start dying, what does the pacifist say then, or do? Is he or she consigned to irrelevancy, while the professional soldiers begin their task of stopping the fighting by fighting. How does a pacifist confront on-going violence, in an era of total war, when terrorists no longer differentiate combatant and noncombatant, deliberately choosing not to for maximum effect.

Scott Simon’s Three Assertions from his speech at the annual Parker Lecture in Washington, DC, sponsored by the United Church of Christ on September 25, 2001

Note: Scott Simon is the host of National Public Radio’s Weekend Edition. A former member of Friends Meeting in Washington, DC and Northside Friends Meeting in Chicago, he identified himself as a Quaker when he gave the lecture.

These assertions need to be faced and answered by Pacifists, because a majority of Americans agree with them.

Assertion 1: Pacifism is an inadequate response when an evil person commits violence that kills innocent people. To quote Simon:

"And I had to confront the real-life flaw – I am inclined to say the fatal flaw – of pacifism: all the best people could be killed by all the worst ones...So I speak as a Quaker of not particularly good standing. I am still willing to give first consideration to peaceful alternatives. But I am not willing to loose lives for the sake of ideological consistency..."

Assertion 2: The United States has a right to wage war with the terrorist that would attack it in the manner of the September 11 events.

"It seems to me that in confronting the forces that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the United States had no sane alternative but to wage war, and wage it with unflinching resolution.

Notice I don’t say reprisal or revenge. What I mean is self-defense – protecting the United States from further attack by destroying those who would launch them....

There are some quarters of world opinion who believe that simply delivering those who plotted the attack to international justice would suffice. But this is not the danger we confront – literally , physically in this very city – which is present, persistent and current. Simply arresting those who executed the attacks in New York and Washington will not deter other assaults that we must assume are proceeding right now...

To reconcile ourselves in any way with the blind souls who flew against New York and Washington – and who have other targets within their sights right now – is to hand over our own lives into wickedness."

Assertion 3: America is the greatest nation on earth, and that makes it worth defending.

"Have thoughtful, moral Americans in the 21^st Century become so extremely insensitive to the sins and shortcomings of the United States, so comfortable with the lack of resolution that moral relativism promotes, that we do not see the blessing that has been put into our hands to protect: an incomparable diverse and democratic nation...those of us who have been pacifists might consider that it has been our blessing to live in a nation in which other citizens have been willing to risk their lives to defend our dissent.

First Response: Simon reacts to criticism from the anti-war movement for the loss of civilian life from the United States actions in Afghanistan. He disagrees with the estimate that thousands died, specifically mentioning the Amnesty International estimate of three thousand. He accepts the estimate of an on-site reporter for the New York Times, Mark Schuster, of 800 casualties. Whether you accept the Anmesty International estimate or a lower one, Simon rejects criticism that the US war was unjust because of civilian casualties. He does so on the basis that the Taliban, left in power, would have killed thousands of Afghans to purge any non-conforming elements from their society.

"But I would invite Friends to measure the number of civilians killed in the war to liberate Afghanistan from the grip of the Taliban alongside the number that would have been killed if the Taliban had stayed in power...If the Taliban had not been displaced, those routine, despicable murders – hundreds of people a year – would have continued."

Second Response: This response to the criticism that the US had previously supported the Taliban in the war to oust the USSR from Afghanistan in the 1980’s. Therefore, the US attempts to cast its actions in moral terms should be rather read in political terms, i.e. – Taliban are to be supported when they are anti-Soviet and become morally unacceptable only when anti-American. Simon also notes a variant criticism, that we took no moral action against genocidal groups in other nations such as Rwanda. Simon answers by quoting Gandhi, "I know more today than yesterday." The past is the past and should not constrain the necessary actions of the present. The Afghan war was justified by its results. (Simon did not comment in this article on the war against Iraq.)

"There is no comfort or honor in seeing lives sacrificed for the sake of intellectual or moral consistency. I believe that Afghanistan is a better, freer country because of Allied military intervention that defeated the brutal, repressive, women-enslaving, gay-bashing theocracy that rules there and made a home for the training and export of terrorism."

Third Response: The third criticism Simon answers is the criticism of the overall US anti-terrorism program, including the erosion of civil liberties under the USA-PATRIOT Act. Simon’s response is consistent with his above, the good achieved outweighs the negative aspects of US policy.

"I don’t feel the entire war on terrorism is discredited by those laws; any more than I feel the Allied effort to win World War II was discredited by the US incarceration of innocent Japanese Americans, the racial segregation of the US military, the bombing of Dresden, or the colonialism of the British Empire – and if there are Friends Journal readers who do not believe that they have grown up in a better, freer world because the Allies were able to defeat the Axis powers in World Way II, I doubt there is much I can say to convince them otherwise."

Fourth Response: I have tried to fairly represent Simon’s views without distortion or criticism. His third assertions from the first Friends Journal article, gave me the feeling he was less inclined to be respectful of his debating opponents than I am trying to be. His third assertion in his September 25 address vaguely equated dissent toward the US policy to a lack of patriotism. In the May, 2003 Friends Journal article, Simon clearly crosses the line and deserves to be called out for a lack of integrity in the this debate. Simon attempts to discredit pacifism by noting that some pacifists in history were pro-Nazi or anti-Semitic. "Peace activism has a history that can be as tarnished as war," he says. He notes Charles Lindbergh’s advocacy for US isolationism prior to World War II and his defense of the German arms buildup as a response to an unjust Versaille treaty. Lindbergh’s public speeches do indicate an anti-Semitism. He alleged that it was powerful US Jews were leading the drive toward war with Germany. Simon also notes the pro-Soviet stance of many socialist and communists of the day, citing George Bernard Shaw as an example. A reading of history demonstrates that many leftists of the thirties and forties were pro-Stalinist. But anyone skilled in logic and rhetoric can see the fallacy of Simon’s argument. It is an attempt to discredit an opponent by ascribing the reprehensible views or actions of another group to an opponent that does not hold them. One could use Simon’s logic to deny the spirituality of Ignatius of Loyola, on the grounds that he was a Jesuit just like Tomas de Torquemada, the head of the Spanish Inquisition. Scott loses all moral standing in this debate the minute he tries to paint all pacifists with the brush of a lack of patriotism, or anti-Semitism, or sympathy for Facisim, or pro-Stalinism. The argument is absurd on its face.

But more to the point of dealing with Simon’s position, one notes that in his responses to criticism of US policy in the May 2003 article, he ignores one major one. He assumes, or fails to deal with, the counter-position that there were other policies the US could have pursued that would have had the similar results without going to war. Thus, the last principle of a just war was not satisfied. (Probably, at least three other principles were not satisfied either, but Simon would dismiss those concerns, as he has others, by his "end justifies the means" rational.) It is on this ground - that there existed alternatives – where pacifists should stand in their rebuttal to Scott Simon.

Three Types of Pacifists, Three Definitions of Pacifism and Three Ways to be Pacifist

In a book, A Just and Lasting Peace: The US Peace Movement from the Cold War to Desert Storm, (The Noble Press, 1991) Roger C Peace III states there are three types of people found in the peace movement: the liberals, the progressives and the pacifists. The three labels are not very descriptive and are somewhat ideological, but Mr. Peace’s point goes a long way to explain why the peace movement often finds it difficult to reach unity on a response to governmental policy leading to war or the ability and willingness to wage war. My labels, perhaps also somewhat ideological, applied to the three types, would be religious, politically liberal and radical. Some people might fall into two categories. They might be religious and politically liberal, or religious and radical. Politically liberal and radical are exclusive categories; you have to be one or the other, but cannot be both. Consistent with Peace’s examples and definitions, the three types may be described as follows:

Religious pacifists: This category covers those who, on theological or spiritual grounds, are against war. Some Friends in this category are often quite conservative in their political beliefs. This category is where one finds the people who are considered conscientious objectors under US law. The shortcoming of this label is that it fails to include the philosophical pacifists who object to war on ethical grounds, but who might well be an atheist. The application of our selective service laws tends to exclude ethical or philosophic pacifists from CO status as religious pacifists. We should not.

Politically liberal: These people tend to be more pragmatic in their stance on pacifism. They get there on the basis that peace-building is the best social policy. There is often a point at which they are willing to abandon pacifism, and may accept the doctrine of "just war", but feel war almost never satisfies the principle. Their anti-war stance may be hard to distinguish from an absolute pacifism, until a "just war" comes along. A real-life example of this breed is found in a few liberal politicians of the Democratic Party. The US selective service laws refuse conscientious objector status to any but an absolute pacifists. So, being against the Vietnam War but willing to serve in World War II is a legal basis to deny CO status under US law. Politically liberal pacifists are compromisers, trying to find a best balance of policies to create a better society. They are better than the religious pacifists and radicals in participating in politics because they will accept what is optimal, or at least achievable, in a given situation.

Radical pacifists: It’s not that their pacifism is radical. Their political world-view is. These are the "new world order" people, tending to advocate a consistent set of legal, social and economic policies. Often anti-capitalist, strong advocates of human rights and social-equality, deeply distrustful of institutions, almost always operating outside the political system. This type often has trouble with CO status, not because they don’t legally qualify, but because this class of pacifist is the one the government will work the hardest to suppress. They often don’t work well with politically liberal pacifists, and may be proud to not do so, believing the liberals are too willing to sell out to the establishment.

There are also three definitions of pacifism that centers around the distinction drawn between war, violence and force. The practical aspect of this distinction in today’s world is seen in the differing degrees of support to UN peace-keeping actions. Those that are against war, but accept a certain degree of violence or force, are more inclined to support a UN action in Bosnia, for example. Some pacifists would assert war and violence are wrong, but are willing to tolerate a certain amount of coercion. An example would be pacifists who are anti-military, but accept that a city, county or state can legitimately maintain a police force. These distinctions are not necessarily hard or obvious. These shades of moral belief often result in an inability to find common ground in advocating for policies that would prevent or stop war or active violence.

Last, there are three ways to be a pacifists. The distinction is easily seen in the response of pacifists to being drafted in World War II. One set of pacifists believed that supporting the state or military, even indirectly, was unacceptable. They chose jail. Some believed that direct participation in the military was unacceptable, but service to the state in another capacity was. These found there way into alternative service in the work camps. The last did not object to military service, but objected to participating in fighting. They could be found in the ambulance core. It probably does not help the peace movement for the first type of pacifist to condemn the third type as moral cop-outs.

Last, Quakers should remember that in the Society of Friends in its early days did not condemn the practice of war or serving in the military. They stated that THEY could not participate in war and violence as a matter of their own conscience. Those who, in following their own conscience, believed that war could be justified by circumstances, were not to be condemned but persuaded. This Quaker ambivalence was demonstrated dramatically in the aftermath of the US Civil War in the way monthly meetings dealt with their men who served in the Union Army. About 12% of the returning soldiers were disowned by their meetings. About 18% were accepted back if they acknowledged their moral error. The other 70% were accepted back into their meetings without censure. The obvious conclusion is that many Friends in this country, in the later half of the nineteenth century, considered pacifism not an absolute principle but a matter of personal conscience.

We need to understand that pacifism does not have a single, commonly accepted definition. Once we understand the many shades of meaning, our dialog can proceed with greater clarity to unity of action within our meetings. Otherwise, we may remain as confused as the builders of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:4-9).

1) From the report issued from a Quaker Seminar in London in October, 2000, on "Alternatives to Military Intervention" (The papers were published in a book by Quaker Books in 2002 titled Discussing Alternatives to Military Intervention.)

"Many among the public officials think that armed conflicts are ‘natural disasters’ that are just going to happen. We need to change the definition of the problem – to show that armed conflicts are the results of policies, histories of behavior and conduct, that these policies and conduct have to change to prevent the disaster happening...

In times of crisis of crisis at the eleventh hour we can still:

Yes protest, but when the bombs fall,

2) From an article by Paul Lederach in the December, 2001 Friends Journal, "The Challenge of Terror, a Traveling Essay". Paul advocates 5 lessons and 3 suggestions in developing a response to terrorism.

Lessons

1. Always understand the root of the anger
2. Always seek to understand the nature of the organization
3. Always remember realities are constructed
4. Always understand the capacity for recruitment
5. Recognize complexity, but always understand the power of simplicity.

Suggestions

1. Energetically pursue a sustainable peace process to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
2. Invest financially in development, education and a broad social agenda in the countries surrounding Afghanistan rather than attempting to destroy Taliban in a search for Bin Ladin.
3. Pursue a quiet diplomatic but dynamic and vital support of the Arab league to begin an internal exploration of how to address the root causes of discontent in numerous regions.

3) From an article by Mary Lord in the July, 2002 Friends Journal, "Can Love Really Overcome: Reflections on the Friends Peace Testimony". When Mary’s article appeared, the war in Afghanistan was on-going. She advocated four immediate steps for friends to take:

1. Make sure our youth are counseled in conscientious objection.
2. Begin the work of non-violent resistance.
3. Ask for the prayers, help and support of Friends throughout the world.
4. The historic "peace churches" must articulate a vision for a peaceful world that does not rely on military force to solve problems.

It is true that hindsight is often unfairly 20-20. Still, it is useful looking back over the past two years to see if experience supports or denies the practical advice offered above. If we still view these the right steps to take or advocate for, then we must be more persuasive next time. If these steps seem inadequate to the situation, we should learn and adapt for.

Also, it is said over and over by peace advocates that peace work is preventative, and that it has to be done early to be effective. Political and world events move with great speed and building a position in the moment may easily be overtaken by events. Instead, we should be continually developing and articulating policies to sustain peace, not merely to prevent war. Once the "rumors of war" start, it is often too late to begin the peace dialog.

There is some use to drawing a distinction between three types of conflicts: between-state, intra-state and extra-state. Between-state conflicts are, obviously, the wars between nations or states, whether formal or de facto. Intra-state wars are civil wars within a nation or state, encompassing religious wars, tribal wars, ethnic wars or "thug wars" (such as the diamond wars in Western Africa). Extra-state wars are religious or political wars, driven by groups with a common values or goals that know no national boundaries or "off-limits" populations. Modern terrorist campaigns are examples of "extrastate". The category is hardly modern. The armies of Tamerlane and Genghis Kahn were extra state. One close historical parallel to the modern situation is the Islamic movement of Hasab ibn-al-Sabbah in about 1090 A.D. The movement was known as the Assassins of Alamut and Syria, from which the we received the common noun "assassin" into our vocabulary. The Assassins were a scourge to Crusader and Muslim alike, Turk and Byzantine.

There are two useful reasons for noting the above distinctions.

First, we have more experience dealing with the first two problems. Throughout the 20^th century, the community of nations has, with disappointing results, attempted to establish organizations to mediate and prevent conflict among nations, from the League of Nations, to the United nations, to the European Union, even to the G-8 summit where the nations with the largest economies try to forge a common approach to world economic issues. In the later part of the 20^th century, U. N. peacekeeping actions have given us a body of experience and policies for intra-state situations like the series of ethnic wars in the Balkans. Our experience dealing with extra-state violence is still limited, and consequently we do not possess a mature set of policies and have almost no track-record of success.

The second problem that extra-state violence presents is that it is difficult to engage its practitioners without inordinate innocent civilian casualties, as the Israeli experience in the Palestinian territory shows. Worse, because it is hard to separate the terrorist from the population, a basic degradation of human rights in the surrounding populations is almost inevitable as the effort to restrict terrorist activity is undertaken.

In dealing with the problem of extra-state terrorism, a difficult challenge pacifists face in the dialog with non-pacifists is to be able to present an alternative to war, which doesn’t entail the suppression of the rights and dignities of a surrounding and largely innocent population. Meeting this challenge requires us to be socially and politically well informed, to recognize the complexity of the situation (thereby avoiding pat answers easily disputed), and having the courage to recognize that there is probably no solution that will not have difficult secondary affects which will have to be identified and mitigated as best they can be.

One issue that Quakers are not in unity over is whether to support United Nations peacekeeping actions which, in "hot" situations, require the use of force or active violence.

There is an instructive book on the subject published by William Sessions, Ltd, c 2000, edited by John Lampen, titled No Alternative? Nonviolent Responses to Repressive Regimes. In a compendium of several articles by different writers, the body of current peacekeeping thought is examined from a variety of angles.

Judith Large, in her article "On Signs, Signals, and Action: Pre-empting Collective Violence", makes the argument that we have to accept reasonable force in the face of a violent regime or paramilitary force. She defines reasonable force as "the means police or others may use to restrain such fighters, pull them apart, and limit the damage they do to themselves or to others.

Kevin Clements, in his article "International Peace Institutions", strongly advocates early warning of a potentially violent situations and the need for immediate preventative diplomacy. However, preventative diplomacy takes time and willingness. Too often the rush toward violence becomes like the rush of sand through the funnel of the hour-glass – it accelerates quickly beyond the natural speed of diplomacy. In those situations, Clements proposes a three-stage approach to resolving the conflict, labeled peace-making, peace-keeping and peace-building. In peace-making, the emphasis is on separating the combatants, by using the necessary force including military action. The emphasis is on stopping the killing as quickly as possible. In the peace-keeping phase, the interveners establish a process for dialog and negotiated agreement, such as for a cease-fire, withdrawal or disarmament. The third phase, peace-building, involves resolving the root cause that led to the conflict.

One of the most interesting of the articles is "Sharpening the Weapons of Peace" by Colonel Philip Wilkinson of the British Army. The British Army has a branch that is devoted to peacekeeping actions. One volume of the Army Field Manual (AFM), Volume V, Part 1, is "Peacekeeping Operations". No similar peacekeeping force or manual exists within the US military. Indeed, Department of Defense policy makers and the President have refused explicit recommendations to adopt the British Army model. NATO has a similar document to the UK MOD AFM, which lists the tasks of the military in peace-keeping occupations as including some or all of the following:

Col. Wilkinson notes a serious limitation to peacekeeping action. Without the acceptance of the combatants and the affected population, the difficulty of conducting an effective peace keeping operation grows quickly beyond what can be reasonably accomplished by the peacekeepers, without overwhelming military force and violence, in short, substituting one war for another war.

One might also point out the British model has had disappointing success in Northern Ireland, probably because of Wilkinson’s warning about the cooperation of the warring parties.

Given the situation the US military finds itself in today with its occupation of Iraq, it makes the past policy of the Department of Defense, refusing to address planning for peacekeeping actions, seem very shortsighted. The steps the US is trying to undertake now in Iraq are almost exactly what was laid out in the NATO manual, but the US military has almost no experience. (Also, one departure from the situation envisioned NATO manual is that the US didn’t enter to stop a conflict, it enterd to start one. This raises the spector of long-term population resistance.) The danger raised by Wilkinson, about a lack of cooperation from the Iraqi fighting factions and surrounding populations, is worrisome. If Wilkinson is right (writing four years before the current situation), the Iraqi occupation will be long and difficult, perhaps paralleling the experience of the Israeli IDF in the Palestinian territories. If this proves to be the case, it may be psychologically satisfying for pacifists to say "we told you so", but hardly productive in preventing the next situation. Pacifist and non-pacifist both have to seek a way out of the current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq in a way that will leave some hope for a lasting peace. We aren’t even close to what looks like a viable solution at this point.

An Epistle of Bethesda, Maryland, Friends Meeting

Dear Friends,

Bethesda Friends Meeting is moved to share with you this statement of concerns about the current state of violent conflict in the world and the challenges faced by members of the Society of Friends and other members of the international community. Our Meeting has spent more than two years considering appropriate responses to conflict in today’s changing world in the light of our historic Peace Testimony.

Today’s Historic Challenge

Our attention is urgently drawn to the large number of violent conflicts in the world today. Contrary to widespread expectations and hopes, the end of the Cold War did not usher in peace. While the threat of general nuclear war may have abated, new disputes have arisen involving cross-border invasions, ethnic and religious conflicts, humanitarian disasters, nuclear proliferation, and failed nation-states – in such widespread places as Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq/Kuwait, Somalia, Tajikistan, Rwanda-Burundi, Angola, and North Korea.

No consensus exists in the international community about how to address these problems. Neither the United Nations, other international organizations, individual nations, private non-governmental groups, nor we as Friends have adequate practical answers about the role the members of the international community should play in such situations. In almost every case, it has been unclear what actions should be taken and by whom.

The UN and regional organizations have limited capability and insufficient resources. Non-governmental organizations operating in conflicted countries can help but in limited ways. Some military forces, often serving in international police roles, can carry out logistical and peace-keeping functions short of the use of force as well as provide self-defense; but militaries too often support tyrannical, oppressive regimes and violent aggression. Using traditional diplomacy to influence the actions of other players is essential, but not sufficient.

It may take more than a generation to learn from experience and develop a consensus among the international community or even significant parts of it, about ways of preventing, controlling or eliminating these violent conflicts. It may take even longer to address their underlying causes that grow out of social, economic, and political injustice and ethnic and religious divisions.

Living in this period of great change and uncertainty in international affairs, we see both opportunities and challenges for Friends to address these questions in ways that both draw on the spiritual experience of our tradition and make a practical contribution to the international community’s search for a more peaceful world.

What Friends Have to Offer

Our testimonies call us to loving action, not retreat. As we seek to discern the movement of the Spirit in our daily lives and in the world, we want our experience of the living God to inform our actions and positions as citizens, we ask how Friends might take a more concerted public stance on international conflict. We are eager for the Quaker voice to be heard in policy-making arenas and elsewhere, and for Friends to play a larger role in the search for new peace-keeping solutions.

Friends’ beliefs and practices are especially relevant at this time. Our beliefs start with the teachings of Jesus who not only reminded his followers of the Mosaic law against killing; but went further to teach that we are now called to love as God loves: not only friends but as enemies as well. George Fox claimed that the Spirit of God within us would make such love possible and taught us to "live in the virtue of the life and power that takes away the occasion of war" by changing our hearts and inward lives.

Our call to peace-keeping is closely related to our efforts to secure equal rights and justice for each person as a natural result of the closeness of our testimonies to the equal value of each person in the love of God and the peacefulness of life lived in God’s love. Thus Friends’ efforts to prevent war emphasize building foundations in equality and creating opportunities for creating economic and social development and ethnic and religious harmony.

Underlying all actions taken by Friends in support of our Peace Testimony has been the strong belief that the individual expression of the testimony must be a matter of deep personal reflection and conscience. This has been true ever since George Fox replied to William Penn’s questions by telling him "to wear thy sword as long as thou canst."

Because Quakers have translated the Peace Testimony into their lives in different ways, their peace-related practice include a broad range of approaches:

Many friends have unconditionally opposed all forms of coercion with their opposition taking many forms. Many have registered as conscientious objectors. Others have chosen jail rather than acknowledge a system of military registration. Still others have refused to pay taxes that will be used for military purposes. Some have followed their consciences to participate as combatants and non-combatants in wars they believe the lesser of two evils. And some have chosen non-violent protest and civil disobedience as their witness.

In the twentieth century many Friends have turned to world governance as part of the solution to these urgent problems, supporting first the League of Nations and later the United Nations as ways of resolving conflicts and promoting economic development and social justice. Since governments have long included the use of police power as an arm of governance, international governance is recognized by some to include international police powers as well. Others have emphasized the role of international assistance in promoting social and economic development.

Friends have served as mediators and behind-the-scenes promoters of reconciliation among parties to conflicts. Friends have also been drawn to the development and use of conflict transformation and resolution skills as tools.

Some Friends have accepted or would accept the threat or use of force in exceptional cases where force is to be used under UN or other international auspices to separate warring parties, protect a vulnerable population, end a situation of anarchy, or in some other way reduce the level of violence that would otherwise occur. For the most part, Friends have avoided adversarial roles, but occasionally have supported those who have been willing to use force against oppressive and unjust rulers.

Addressing the Future

Drawing on the strength of the Quaker peace tradition and the diversity of our historical role and expertise in peace-making and peace-keeping, we believe that Friends should respond to the challenge of today’s conflicts by seeking to play a larger role with others in the international community in search for solutions. To this end, we call ourselves and other Friends to pursue three lines of actions:

Action One

General search: to participate vigorously and engage with non-Quakers in the search for:

1. practical principles that, recognizing the preciousness of human life, will best promote the peaceful, non-violent resolution of today’s types of conflicts
2. the means by which the long-term causes of these conflicts can be eliminated, and
3. the roles of the different members of the international community in dealing with these issues.

We recognize the importance of preparing ourselves carefully and speaking out to as wide a range of people as possible, not just to those who already agree with us.

Action Two

Immediate tasks: to support the following immediate goals as part of our broader effort to dismantle and supplant the tools of war.

Action Three

Continued exploration and discernment: as we continue to learn more from unfolding international events we will seek divine guidance so that our peace witness is grounded in our spiritual lives as Friends. We seek the patience to wait and listen, and a spirit of love to enable us to be tender with one another in our separate partial and imperfect understandings . Among the questions that concern us are:

E-mail: friendsbulletin@aol.com