Connect with us

Defense

The link between Non-Violent Resistance and Conflict Transformation in asymmetrical conflicts

Avatar photo

Published

on

Non-violent resistance is a generic type of non-violent movement which goes hand in hand with conflict transformation. Conflict transformation intends to change the dynamics of conflict, relationship of the parties and make conditions favorable to bring both the parties for negotiations. One way to achieve such conditions can be performing the acts of omission and commission. Through these acts the opponent can be convinced to opt for conflict resolution as soon as possible. Non-violent resistance can seize the functioning of state and society, if it is conducted against the occupiers, state government or colonizers. This cannot be pursued where there is power asymmetry. The strong group can use force to suppress the weaker one. It may cause mass bloodshed, mental and physical harm, and widespread chaos. Power asymmetry might give the strong group a leverage to do what they perceive is right, and make “other” to fulfil their unnecessary demands.

    Marginalized and oppressed communities can express their grievances and demand equal treatment and social justice through non-violent resistance. It is one of the most effective tools in the domain of non-violence. Direct involvement in opposition against the physical and structural violence, and all injustices without resorting to physical violence. It can also contribute in conflict transformation as their techniques possess a common goal, social change through peaceful means. Conflict transformation can also cause power shifts, this may mitigate or de-escalate the conflict. That can bring both parties to conflict resolution. Moreover, “direct action” challenges the existing methods of conflict resolution like courts, legislature, mediation, negotiation etc. It confronts is the status quo and can disturb the law and order situation.

Non-violent resistance is not only the opposition to physical violence but the structural faults as well. Tolstoy, Quaker and Thoreau have asserted that authority of any ruler or regime depends on the submissiveness and obedience of the “ruled”. In non-violent resistance, this submissiveness is abolished through non-cooperation and civil disobedience like boycotts, strikes, tax resistance. This obstructs the government to operate.

Since 1945, different social movements were gaining momentum to achieve different objectives like Gandhi’s Independence Movement, Civil Rights Movement, and etc. During this, two major concepts of non-violence were developed: principled non-violence and pragmatic non-violence. Principled non-violence is the approach which argues the resort to non-violent resistance due to religious, moral and philosophical purposes. It says that violence should be avoided because it is the brutality against humanity and nature. People should be at peace mentally and physically. They should believe in truth and follow non-violence as a goal for life. Gandhi followed the same non-violence principle. He believed in self-transformation, self-inflicting harm to achieve one’s goals, and opposing violence without making use of it. He believed in conflict transformation through extremely peaceful means. On the other hand, pragmatic non-violence propounds the idea of tactical approach. It says that non-violent struggle should be properly planned and strategized. There should be a balanced approach employed, peaceful means like negotiations and dialogues paired with non-violent actions and tactics to challenge the power dynamics of the society.

Non-violent resistance or any non-violent movement can attract foreign support to pressurize the opponent. This is a significant element of NVR. But the interveners should be impartial, and support the rightful group. They mostly work for the assistance of low-power group. If it is found out that foreign interveners have associated any gains through their lent support, the NVR is considered illegitimate. Foreign assistance can be effective in many cases. It can reduce the intensity of violence, pressurize the opponent, impose sanctions on repressive regimes, and play a strong part in negotiation processes. And if both the conflicting parties have good faith in the third party, mediation process can lead to conflict resolution.

NVR gives courage, political and social awareness and power to the oppressed. It is also called power of the powerless. Actions and campaigns like protests, marches and demonstrations mobilize the local people and create unity among them. Along with symbolic expression of grievances, the subjects can engage the opponent in meaningful dialogues, and convince them. Logical arguments coupled with symbolic opposition against injustices can convert the opponents, and bring about a social change. However, if the conflict is inter-ethnic or asymmetric, these strategies might not bring about enough social changes.

The promotion of democratic practices, peaceful means of eliminating the hatred, sense of revenge and animosity in post-conflict phase is a positive aspect of many non-violent movements. Attitudinal and behavioral change can stop the conflict from arising again. Therefore, post-revolutionary reconciliation is essential for lasting peace.

    Veronique Dudouet has comprehensively drawn a link between non-violent resistance and conflict transformation in her article Non-Violent Resistance and Conflict Transformation in Power Asymmetries. The author has stated that NVR and conflict transformation go hand in hand because they possess the same motive. She argues that a combination of the techniques of NVR and conflict transformation can be effective, but cannot be pursued in its true sense in an undemocratic state. This is rightly said because if a state is undemocratic, there will be power asymmetry. The dominant group might be a forced dictator or an occupier, in that case, the dominated group might be coerced forcefully to suppress the non-violent resistance. This might cause bloodshed, disruption of law and order, and unwarranted detainments. As it is clearly illustrated in Amritsar massacre and many such incidents. Gandhi was a proponent of non-violence movement against British Raj, he did not ask any of his supporters to take up arms. The movement had to sacrifice many of its soldiers during the struggle even then.

Dudouet explains that Gandhi believed in self-transformation and bearing violence without using it. The Gandhian Theory says that satyagrahi fights injustices, negotiate peacefully and mutually devise solutions. In this realist world, this concept is extremely idealistic to comprehend. If the dominant group consistently uses violence to disintegrate the non-violent movement, the dominated ones have to pick up arms for their survival. Such circumstances might involve foreign powers, which may exploit the situations for their own gains. Either side they support, it will lead to chaotic situation. It is possible that involvement or assistance from foreign interveners might make the NVR illegitimate in front of oppressors. This will affect the cause of the non-violent movement and if it is against the state authority, the whole movement may be framed as sabotaging activity against the state. Balochistan Liberation Movement is not completely non-violent movement but is claimed as a threat to national security due to foreign support. Having their demands genuine, the movement has lost its purpose and legitimacy.

It is mentioned in the article under consideration that many non-violent campaigns resorted to guerilla tactics and lost their purpose and direction. They did so, when the NVR became unsuccessful. The urge to adopt two extreme approaches can damage the cause and objective of the oppressed. A balanced approach should be employed in order to succeed. When there is need to use violence to achieve something, or thwart the adversary from doing something, it should be done. There should be no rule of thumb in NVR and conflict transformation to which one has to stick. And it is not practically possible as well. According to realist perspective, every move and action in international politics is interest based. If survival is the interest, one should acquire any strategy to achieve it. Few analysts assume Gandhi to be working for his own political interest calling him as a clever tactician of non-violence. They argued that he exploited the events of killings, detainments, Amritsar Massacre, and other atrocious harms on his supporters to gain more popularity and support nationwide.

The author has created a detailed analogy between conflict transformation and non-violent resistance in power asymmetry but has not proposed any recommendations to transform conflicts in intense power asymmetry. This is a loophole in this article. As the author has clearly depicted that, NVR is a strong tool in undemocratic states to oppose oppression but is not much effective. Most appropriate recommendation for this purpose, is a balanced strategy. It should comprise of peaceful means of conflict resolution and power sharing paired with violent/guerrilla tactics when needed. But offensive attacks should be avoided when parties are heading towards negotiation table. Good faith should be established at that time.

    Nonviolent resistance and conflict transformation aim to achieve the same objective, peace. It is not only important to express grievances through different means, but to understand other’s perspective and concerns as well. It is evident in the article that non-violent resistance and conflict transformation are effective, but in asymmetrical conflict it may become futile. Therefore, different strategies should be adopted to make it practically workable and achieve the set objectives.

. I am currently pursuing my Bachelor's in Peace and Conflict Studies from National Defence University, Islamabad.

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

Mobilization Won’t Save Russia from the Quagmire

Published

on

photo:© Vitaly Nevar/TASS

When Moscow waged war against Ukraine in February, few expected Russia to end up in a quagmire.  The Russian military failed to achieve its goals, while the Ukrainians fought bravely to defend their nation.  The recent pushback in the Kharkiv region further proved that Russia could not achieve its military goals under the current situation. 

The Russian government takes a new procedure.  President Putin has called for partial mobilization, commissioning the reserved forces and those previously served.  Meanwhile, the Russian government has decided to launch referendums for the occupied areas to join Russia.  Any attacks on those territories in the future could be considered total war and potentially trigger nuclear weapon use.  

It is vital to notice this is only a partial mobilization, only recalling reservists.  However, many Russian politicians and nationalists have called for total mobilization.  Yet, a mobilization, whether partial or complete, is not a prescription to improve Moscow’s performance on the battlefield.  The mobilization, in reality, could further drag Russia into a quagmire. 

Russia does not have the political leverage it had before, home and abroad.  Total mobilization will not change Russia’s diplomatic stalemate.  The war united European countries quickly.  While Russia accused Ukraine of attempting to join NATO, Finland and Sweden have applied to become NATO members, bringing NATO close to Saint Petersburg.  A total mobilization is unlikely to threaten Europe and forces it to change its policy.  Instead, it will further push the European countries to unite in facing Russian aggression.

Even the countries with which Russia has a closer relationship have different opinions.  Indian prime minister Modi has told President Putin to take the path of peace and stop the war in a recent meeting.  India has a close relationship with Russia, and Modi’s criticism is a significant blow to Putin.  Even Central Asia countries have also expressed no interest in Putin’s aggression.  Kazakhstan has clearly stated that it will neither send its military to fight in Ukraine nor recognize the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. A total mobilization and an escalation of the war will further alienate Russia and its allies. 

Domestically, a mobilization could further drag Putin down with his popularity.  Chechnyan president Kadyrov, one of Putin’s close allies, has criticized the war’s progress, reflecting the contrary opinions among Russian elites.  On the everyday citizen level, Putin has also become unpopular.  Immediately after the mobilization was introduced, Russian anti-war groups called for national protests

Militarily, the Russian war machine is not the Soviet Union military that the world trembles.  The Russian army has needed a significant upgrade since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The chaos after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic crisis has dramatically weakened the Russian armed forces.  The failure in the two Chechnyan Wars is the most obvious evidence.  Putin managed to upgrade a portion of the military equipment and provided a better salary to the personnel.  The Russian military still performed decently during its operation in Syria. 

Yet, the scale of upgrade it needs is far from what Kremlin has offered, and the war further dragged the Russian military capacity.  Before the war, Russia chose not to produce and deploy the most advanced tanks because of the lack of money, and the T-14 tank ended up being a showpiece in the military parade.  The corruption within the Russian military is still a problem, leading to the lack of resources directed for military upgrades. 

That’s why Russia still uses the Soviet military legacy in combat.  The Russian armored forces now have to use T-64 tanks from their storage because of the significant loss at the initial stage of the war.  The recruits this summer were only trained for a month before being sent to the frontline.  As for the newly mobilized forces, despite the previously served reservists, it still takes time and equipment to prepare them for operation.  Russia has neither of those, let alone the conscripts are also a part of the reserved forces, making them even more ineffective on the battlefield. 

Moscow’s financial situation to sustain a mobilization remains a big question.  Despite the excellent performance of the Russian Ruble in the currency market, Russia’s economy will still face severe challenges.  Teachers are now required to donate to the war effort, a sign that the war effort is far from successful.  As the announcement of mobilization comes, Moscow’s stock index drops dramatically.  While the sanctions did not work as expected, the Russian economy suffered from the effects.  The banks also reported significant losses in the year’s first half. 

The international price of natural gas and oil has also come down from its peak since European countries finished stacking up their supply earlier.  Meanwhile, UAE and Kuwait are planning to expand their production capacity of natural gas and oil.  Russia’s source of income is far from stable as prices drop and exports and production decline for Russia.

War is a costly activity.  In previous operations in Syria, Russia’s daily cost is around 2.4 to 4 million US dollars.  That was a minor operation with mainly air force participation.  With all forces in action and the war dragging on for more than 200 days, the expenses mounted.  It is believed that the first week of war alone cost Russia 7 billion dollars.  The Kremlin’s decree says that the newly assembled forces will be paid corresponding to the existing personnel.  With that high expense, how will Russia be able to pay for the new troops?  How will Russia be able to replace the equipment and supply its forces?


Moscow believed that by sheer force and lightning warfare, Kyiv would bow down to Moscow.  However, this dream ended with a valiant effort from the Ukrainians to defend the country.  Further mobilization may provide the short-term manpower that Russia needs, but it will not save Russia from the predicament.  The bleak reality in politics, the military, and the economy has made mobilization anything but a save.  

Continue Reading

Defense

Rise in mercenary forces trigger ‘rampant’ human rights violations

Avatar photo

Published

on

Human rights violations committed by mercenaries and private security companies create grave challenges for victims seeking justice and redress, UN-appointed independent human rights experts warned on Tuesday.

Presenting its new report to the Human Rights Council 51st session, the Working Group on the use of mercenaries said that this was due to the particularity of the perpetrators and the way they operate.

They also noted that the proliferation of mercenaries, contractors operating as soldiers for hire and private security companies in conflict, post-conflict and peacetime settings, has increased the number of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

“Deplorable gaps in accountability, access to justice, and remedies for victims of violations perpetrated by such actors are rampant,” said Sorcha MacLeod, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group, who presented the report to the Council.

‘Victim-centred approach’

The experts explained that, in the contexts in which they operate, the impacts of their actions are of grave concern.

Persons in vulnerable situations, women, children, migrants and refugees, people with disabilities, LGBTI+ persons, older persons, minorities, human rights defenders and journalists, are experiencing particularly negative impacts, the experts highlighted.

“Given this bleak situation, a holistic and victim-centred approach is imperative to ensure victims’ effective access to justice and remedy,” Ms. MacLeod said.

Investigate and punish offenders

The report highlights a lack of accountability and the common challenges faced by victims in accessing justice and effective remedies to overcome the damage mercenaries leave in their wake.

It drew specific attention to the secrecy and opacity surrounding the activities of mercenaries, military contractors hired to kill, and private security companies; their complex business and corporate structures, issues related to jurisdiction; and gaps in national and international regulation.

States have obligations under international human rights law to prevent, investigate, and punish violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and to provide effective remedies and reparation to victims of mercenaries, mercenary-related actors, and private military and security companies,” the experts said.

They concluded by urging States to adopt national legislation to “regulate the activities of these actors, punish perpetrators, and provide redress for victims are part of these implementation efforts”.

Continue Reading

Defense

A New Strategic Shifts and A New Strategic Concept of NATO

Avatar photo

Published

on

nato

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit, in Madrid at the end of last June, was not just an ordinary summit resembling its predecessors. It looked so different that it might be thought that it might constitute an important turning point in the path of the Alliance.

This summit was held four months after the start of the war that Russia launched against Ukraine. And because it is a war that posed an unprecedented challenge to NATO, due to the exposure of one of the European states nominated for its membership to a direct Russian military invasion, for the first time since the end of World War II, and therefore in the history of the alliance, it is natural that any summit held after that will turn into something like a thermometer that does not only measure the degree of the alliance’s cohesion in facing a challenge of this magnitude, but also the extent of its readiness to respond to it, and to all similar and potential challenges in the future.

Its contract coincided with a time when the Alliance had to issue a new document outlining its strategic concept for the next ten years. Because the last document of this type was issued in 2010, it was assumed that 2020 would be the date of the issuance of the document covering the third era of the twenty-first century, which did not happen due to the outbreak of the Covid 19 pandemic, which disrupted the convening of the summit during 2020 and 2021. Thus, fate decided that the date of a summit with the task of formulating a new strategic vision for the alliance coincided with the outbreak of a major crisis, some of whom do not rule out that it would be the starting point in a third world war, which added to the ‘strategic concept’ document signed by NATO leaders on June 29 the past for the period up to 2030 is doubly important and exceptional.

The 2022 document, which is 11 pages in length, includes 49 items distributed on three axes: objectives and principles, the strategic environment, and the main tasks of the alliance (deterrence and defense, prevention and crisis management, cooperative security) a vision that clearly emphasizes that the strategic concept of NATO has undergone fundamental changes, especially if compared to the concept contained in the document issued in 2010. This is from multiple angles: it reflects, first, a clear change in the alliance’s vision of the sources of threats to its security, because the previous document issued in 2010, which reflected the strategic concept of the alliance for the period up to 2020, Terrorism was placed at the top of the list of sources of threat to peace and security at various levels, while this source took steps backward in the 2022 document, and is no longer seen as the main source of threat to the security and stability of the Alliance.

The Russian Federation advanced to occupy the top position on this list. This document spoke of the Russian Federation as ‘the biggest and most direct threat to the security of the Alliance and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region… because it aims to destabilize the countries of our east and south, in the far north.’

Here, it notes the extent of the direct impact of the war in Ukraine on changing the alliance’s vision to the sources of threats to its security and stability. It is also noted that the alliance no longer views Russia as a potential or indirect threat, but rather as a direct military threat. ‘The Russian Federation’s ability to disrupt Allied reinforcements and freedom of navigation across the North Atlantic is a strategic challenge to it, and Moscow’s military buildup, including in the Baltic, Black Sea, and Mediterranean regions, along with its military integration with Belarus, challenges our security and interests,’ the document says.

On the other hand, it is noted that the 2010 document avoided looking at China as a source of threat to the alliance, only referring to it as an ambitious competitor seeking to enhance its position at the regional and global levels by increasing its economic, scientific, and technological capabilities. As for the 2022 document, it is not only looking at China as an honorable competitor but as a source of threat no less dangerous than Russia. It is true that it does not see China as a direct military threat to the alliance, as is the case with Russia, but it sees, at the same time, that ‘the declared ambitions of the People’s Republic of China, and its adoption of a wide range of political, economic and military tools to increase its global presence and demonstrate strength, and its use of malicious methods it aims to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, strategic materials, and supply chains, and use its economic influence to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence, etc., which constitute a direct threat to the interests, security, and values ​​of the Alliance.

The most interesting point is that this document considers that ‘the deepening of the strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation and their mutual attempts to undermine the rules-based international order is incompatible with our values ​​and interests,’ and therefore should be confronted with due firmness.

Secondly, it reflects a clear change in the Alliance’s vision of how to confront sources of threats to its security and stability. After the Alliance, in its previous documents, focused on ‘cooperation, building partnerships, and networking with others,’ as effective means of confronting various sources of threat, we find it focusing on the current document focuses on ‘building our own capabilities, mobilizing resources, and increasing military expenditures.’ It is true that the document clearly stressed that the alliance ‘does not seek to confront Russia, and does not want to be a source of threat to it,’ but at the same time, it was keen to highlight ‘the alliance’s determination to strengthen the deterrent and defensive capabilities of all its members and that it will respond to threats in a unified and responsible manner.’ And it will keep it’s channels of communication open with the Russians to prevent escalation.

On the other hand, it is noted that the document did not recognize any role of the NATO states or the ruling regime in Ukraine in provoking Russia, and pushing it to use force in Ukraine, under the pretext of ensuring the protection of citizens of Russian origin, nor did it refer, from near or far, to feelings of concern. President Putin, after Ukraine, signed a strategic partnership agreement with the United States on November 10, nor to the demands contained in his message to NATO member states, in response to this agreement, which included: A pledge that Ukraine would not join the alliance NATO, not placing offensive weapons on Russia’s borders, and withdrawing NATO forces from Eastern Europe to Western Europe, demands that the United States refused to even discuss, which eventually led to the outbreak of war. Instead, the document proceeded to affirm the right of all countries in the region, especially Eastern European countries, to determine their fate and future, including joining NATO and the European Union and rejecting any interference by the Russian Federation in the internal affairs of these countries.

If we link what was stated in this document and the path taken by the ongoing war in the Ukrainian arena, we will reach a set of conclusions: The first, regarding how to slip into the currently raging military confrontation in the Ukrainian arena, it is not at all unlikely that the United States, through Its organs and institutions that express the thought and orientations of the deep state, have deliberately lured Russia into a confrontation on the Ukrainian arena, and it has been seriously preparing for this confrontation since Russia occupied the Crimea in 2014.

The second: Relates to the essence of the current conflict in this arena. All the parties involved in it realize that its main goal revolves around putting an end to the unilateral Western hegemony over the current world order and establishing a multi-polar world order or, at least, a tri-polar system in which Russia and China participate, which is rejected by the West led by the United States, and explains the return of NATO cohesion After he was threatened with collapse, he explains, at the same time, the West’s insistence on inflicting a military defeat on Russia in the Ukrainian arena, because its victory means, immediately, the collapse of the unipolar international system.

The third: Is related to the tools used in this conflict, as Western countries realize that Russia is the first nuclear power in the world, forcing it not to engage directly in the ongoing conflict with it in the Ukrainian arena, and then to limit itself to the weapon of comprehensive sanctions against Russia, on the one hand, and to submit The maximum possible military, political and economic support for Ukraine, to enable it to win the war, on the other hand.

Fourth: Concerning the future of this conflict. The path taken indicates, on the one hand, that the economic sanctions have not yielded the desired results, and that Russia may be on its way to winning this round of conflict, but it indicates, on the other hand, that the support provided to Ukraine It not only enabled it to hold out and prevent Russia from achieving a quick and decisive victory, but also to recover the many lands it had lost, and to begin to liberate what remained of them, including Crimea. Because it is impossible to imagine that a nuclear Russia would accept a military defeat in Ukraine, escalation and the use of tactical nuclear weapons are no longer excluded, especially since the events of recent months have proven that the United States has harnessed all its technological and intelligence capabilities in the service of Ukraine, which Moscow may interpret as direct American involvement in the conflict.

So I think the whole world may be about to go into a dark tunnel in the next few months. Unless all of its leaders realize that all of humanity, not just Russia or NATO, faces many sources of threat, not the least of which are climatic changes and infectious diseases, and therefore is in dire need of a new world order that confronts all sources of threats to its common security, it will not be able to Anyone surviving the specter of nuclear war is slowly getting closer.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Economy1 hour ago

The Historic Day of Euro’s Downfall

The date August 22 should be remembered as the day of the euro’s “official” downfall. After a long period of...

Intelligence4 hours ago

Pakistani Intelligence Agencies ignite Tribal Conflicts in Pak-Afghan Region

According to the intelligence information, Pakistani intelligence community supported by some international rings want to once again spread dispute and...

South Asia9 hours ago

Changing Regional Security Paradigm: A Challenge to Kashmir and Options for Pakistan

The post-cold war world has witnessed shifts in international and regional security paradigms. Due to globalization, easy migrations, advanced technologies,...

Central Asia12 hours ago

Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit and Later Developments: The Politics Analyzed

The summit’s mood was a somber one, toned down by Ukraine war, mounting global economic and environmental crises. Important developments...

Green Planet14 hours ago

A Healthy Environment is Now a Universal Human Right: But What Does the Recognition Mean?

On July 28, 2022, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution that “recognizes the right to a clean,...

Middle East17 hours ago

Public opinion surveys challenge the image Arab leaders like to project

Several recent public opinion surveys send a mixed message to autocratic reformers in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and...

Green Planet19 hours ago

The Ravages Of Earth: Natural And Man-Made

Italy has suffered a terrible drought, and its longest river, the Po, ran dry.  It is about 400 miles in...

Trending