| Sumario: | This article discusses the mobilization of nonviolent approaches against terrorism. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., there were many eloquent commentaries criticizing the U.S. government's rush into a war on terrorism. However, much of this writing seemed written for governments, as authors either said how counterproductive or unethical it would be to bomb civilians, or encouraged the addressing of longstanding sources of grievance. Though the arguments are right, pleas to governments are unlikely to have much impact. After all, peace activists have been arguing for decades that war and violence are counterproductive, but seldom do government leaders take any notice. In commentaries about 11 September, little has been said about what individuals can do besides protest against government policy. In the aftermath of September 11, a supporter of nonviolence should support technologies that are less vulnerable to attack, support nonviolent intelligence operations, document and promote the advantages of nonviolent action compared to terrorism, and use nonviolent action against repression and oppression. Another option is to not be distracted by the rhetoric of the war on terrorism but instead to carefully assess all situations involving violence, including state terrorism, and act where the most impact can be made. This might include exposing the hypocrisy of governments when they point the finger only at terrorism by others and never at their own roles in manufacturing and exporting weapons and torture equipment, in training soldiers and torturers, in propping up dictatorships and undermining democracies, and in fighting wars. It is wise for nonviolent activists to listen to diverse voices in the debates that followed 11 September.
|
|---|