Kazakhstan. They said; "We cannot be silent. In the process of our growing democracy, the
people's opinion gains power and range. Everything happening on this earth applies to al of
us. Only by uniting our efforts … wil we help ourselves survive in this stil green world."23
Whether or not their protest stopped the testing is not certain. But the fact that in the
Soviet Union such a meeting could take place and boldly cal for a change in national policy
was a sign of a new power developing to contest the power of the government.
236
Nonviolent direct action is inextricably related to democracy. Violence to the point of terrorism is the desperate tactic of tiny groups who are incapable of building a mass base of
popular support. Governments much prefer violence committed by disciplined armies under
their control, rather than adopt tactics of nonviolence, which would require them to entrust
power to large numbers of citizens, who might then use it to threaten the elites' authority.
A worldwide movement of nonviolent action for peace and justice would mean the entrance
of democracy for the first time into world affairs. That's why it would not be welcomed by
the governments of the world, whether "totalitarian" or "democratic." It would eliminate the dependence on their weapons to solve problems. It would bypass the official makers of
policy and the legal suppliers of arms, the licensed dealers in the most deadly drug of our
time: violence.
It was 200 years ago that the idea of democracy was introduced into modern government,
its philosophy expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: Governments derive
their powers from the consent of the governed and maintain their legitimacy only when they
answer the needs of their citizens for an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
It is surely time to introduce that basic democratic concept into international affairs. The
terrifying events of this century make it clear that the political leaders of the world and the
experts who advise them are both incompetent and untrustworthy. They have put us al in
great danger.
We recal the British historian Arnold Toynbee, surveying thousands of years of human
history, and despairing of what he saw in the atomic age. He cried out: "No annihilation
without representation!"
The New Realism
Those of us who cal for the repudiation of massive violence to solve human problems must
sound Utopian, romantic. So did those who demanded the end of slavery. But Utopian ideas
do become realistic at certain points in history, when the moral power of an idea mobilizes
large numbers of people in its support. This may then be joined to the realization, by at
least some of those in authority, that it would be realistic for them to change their policy, even perhaps share power with those they have long control ed.
It is becoming more and more clear that "military victory," that cherished goal of generals and politicians, may not be possible any more. Wars end in stalemates, as with the United
States in Korea, or with Iran and Iraq, or in forced withdrawals, as the United States in
Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. So cal ed "victories," as Israel in the 1967 war, bring no peace, no security. Civil wars become endless, as in El Salvador, and after rivers of
blood the participants must turn to negotiated settlements. The contras in Nicaragua could
not win militarily, and final y had to negotiate for a political solution.
The economic costs of war and preparations for war threaten the stability of the great
powers. One of the reasons the United States withdrew from Vietnam was the drain on its
budget, which required the neglect of social problems at home, bringing on the black riots of
1967 and 1968, throwing a scare into the establishment. The Soviet Union undertook bold
initiatives for disarmament in the mid-1980s when it recognized that its economy was
overmilitarized and failing. Both superpowers must be reminding themselves more and
more of al those empires in history that became arrogant with power, overburdened with
armies, impoverished by taxes, and col apsed.24
237
Heads of governments become nervous when public opinion begins to veer away from their control. This happened in the 1980s, when dramatic changes took place in the public's views
on war and militarism. In the United States in 1981 public opinion surveys showed that 75
percent of those pol ed said more money was needed for the military. But by the beginning
of 1985, only n percent favored an increase in military spending, and 46 percent favored a
decrease.25
might wel be pleased. Caspar Weinberger, leaving his job as secretary of defense for seven
years under Reagan, was alarmed: "A recent, rather startling pol indicated that 71% of
Republicans and 74% of Democrats believe that the United States can trust the general
secretary of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev."26
In 1983 in West Germany, so close to the Soviet bloc, 55 percent saw the Soviet Union as a
military threat; by 1988, only 24 percent saw such a threat, and half of those pol ed were in
favor of unilateral disarmament.27 In 1984 a quarter of a mil ion West Germans gathered in
Kassel to protest the instal ation of Pershing and cruise missiles. They erected ninety-six
crosses in a field outside the U.S. Air Force Station, one for each cruise missile deployed
there.
With both the United States and the Soviet Union facing severe economic problems—
stagnation and budget deficits—there is suddenly a realistic incentive to cut back on military spending. Indeed, the forbidden phrase unilateral disarmament may become very practical.
Unilateral actions are the best way; they avoid endless negotiations, as was seen in 1963
when John F. Kennedy took the initiative to stop atmospheric nuclear testing and the Soviet
Union fol owed suit.28 There had been an earlier "moment of hope" (the phrase of Nobel
Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker), when Khrushchev became the Soviet leader and his
government withdrew Soviet forces from Austria and returned a naval base to Finland. But
that didn't lead to anything significant, and, according to Soviet specialist Walter Clemens;
"Washington never tested Moscow's offer to join both Germanys in a neutral and
demilitarized Central Europe."29
The nation that takes the first initiatives to disarm wil be at a great advantage. First, in
world prestige, that much-desired image. Note how Gorbachev, after his initiatives, became the most popular political figure in West Germany, the United States' strongest al y. Second,
in freeing huge resources for economic development. The obvious benefits to the nation that
first disarms might wel lead to a disarmament race.
Statistics indicate that, of the industrialized nations, those that spend the least for military
purposes show the greatest economic progress. The United States between 1982 and 1986
spent 6 percent of its gross national product for the military while Japan spent about 1
percent. Japan's economy, everyone agreed, was more efficient, more dynamic, and
healthier.
Of course, those realistic incentives are not enough by themselves to alter the habits of
governments so deeply dug into old policies of militarism and war. But they create the
possibilit
y, if a great popular movement should develop to insist on change. Such a
movement, if it became large enough and strong enough to threaten the political power of
the government, would create an additional incentive for change.
238
A great movement must be driven by a vision, as the civil rights movement was driven by the dream of equality and the antiwar movement by the prospect of peace. The vision in
this case, for people al over the world, is the most inspiring of al , that of a world without
war, without police states nourished by militarism, and with immense resources now free to
be used for human needs. It would be a tremendous shift of resources from death to life. It
would mean a healthy future for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.
The vision would be of a tril ion dol ars (the annual military costs around the world) made
available to the coming generation, to the young, who could use their energy, their talents,
their idealism, and their love of adventure to rebuild the cities, feed the hungry, house the
homeless, clean the rivers and lakes, refresh the air we breathe, and revitalize the arts.
Imagine the 30 mil ion young men now in uniform, imagine those several hundred mil ion
people in the world either unemployed or underemployed (the International Labor Office
estimates over 400 mil ion people in the 1980s)—imagine al that wasted energy mobilized
to make their lives useful and exciting and to transform the planet.30
If the U.S. government can give several hundred bil ion dol ars in contracts to corporations
to build weapons, why can it not (by powerful public demand) give that valuable money to
public-service corporations whose contracts wil require them to employ people, young and
old, to make life better for everyone? The conversion of resources requires a conversion of
language. New definitions of old terms could become a part of the common vocabulary. The
old definitions have misled us and caused monstrous harm.
The word security, for instance, would take on a new meaning: the health and wel -being of people, which is the greatest strength and the most lasting security a nation can have. (A
simple parable makes this clear: Would a family living in a high-crime city feel more
"secure" if it put machine guns in its windows, dynamite charges in the yard, and tripwires al around the house, at the cost of half the family income and less food for the children?
The analogy is not far-fetched. It is an understatement of what nations do today.)
The word defense would mean, not the waging of war and the accumulation of weapons, but
the united actions of people against tyranny, using every ingenious device of nonviolent
resistance.
Democracy would mean the right of people everywhere to determine for themselves, rather
than have political leaders decide for them, how they wil defend themselves, how they wil
make themselves secure, and how they wil achieve justice and freedom.
Patriotism would mean not blind obedience to a nation's leaders, but a commitment to help
one's neighbors and to help anyone, regardless of race or nationality, achieve a decent life.
It is impossible to know how quickly or how powerful y such new ways of thinking, such
reversals of priorities, can take hold, can excite the imagination of mil ions, can cross
frontiers and oceans, and can become a world force. We have never had a chal enge of this
magnitude, but we have never had a need so urgent, a vision so compel ing.
History does not offer us predictable scenarios for immense changes in consciousness and
policy. Such changes have taken place, but always in ways that could not be foretold,
starting often with imperceptibly smal acts, developing along routes too complex to trace.
Al we can do is to make a start, wherever we can, to persist, and let events unfold as they
wil .
On our side are colossal forces. There is the desire for survival of 5 bil ion people. There are
the courage and energy of the young, once their adventurous spirit is turned toward the
ending of war rather than the waging of war, creation rather than destruction, and world
friendship rather than hatred of those on the other side of the national boundaries.
239
There are artists and musicians, poets and actors in every land who are ready to make the world musical and eloquent and beautiful for al of us, if we give them the chance. They,
perhaps more than anyone, know what we are al missing by our infatuation with violence.
They also know the power of the imagination and can help us to reach the hearts and souls
of people everywhere.
The composer Leonard Bernstein a few years ago spoke to a graduating class at John
Hopkins University; "Only think: if al our imaginative resources currently employed in
inventing new power games and bigger and better weaponry were re-oriented toward
disarmament, what miracles we could achieve, what new truths, what undiscovered realms
of beauty!"31
There are teachers in classrooms al over the world who long to talk to their pupils about
peace and solidarity among people of al nations and races.
There are ministers in churches of every denomination who want to inspire their
congregations as Martin Luther King, Jr., did, to struggle for justice in a spirit of joy and
love.
There are people, mil ions of them, who travel from country to country for business or
pleasure, who can carry messages that wil begin to erase, bit by bit, the chalk marks of
national boundaries, the artificial barriers that keep us apart.
There are scientists anxious to use their knowledge for life instead of death.
There are people holding ordinary jobs of al kinds who would like to participate in
something extraordinary, a movement to beautify their city, their country, or their world.
There are mothers and fathers who want to see their children live in a decent world and
who, if spoken to, if inspired, if organized, could raise a cry that would be heard on the
moon.
It is, of course, an enormous job to be done. But never in history has there been one more
worthwhile. And it needn't be done in desperation, as if it had to be done in a day. Al we
need to do is make the first moves, speak the first words.
One of the scientists who worked on the atomic bomb, who later was a scientific adviser to
President Eisenhower, chemist George Kistiakowsky, devoted the last years of his life, as he
was dying of cancer, to speaking out against the madness of the arms race in every public
forum he could find. Toward the very end, he wrote, in the Bul etin of the Atomic Scientists:
"I tel you as my parting words. Forget the channels. There simply is not enough time left
before the world explodes. Concentrate instead on organizing, with so many others of like
mind, a mass movement for peace such as there has not been before."
He understood that it was not the bomb he had worked on, but the people he had come to
work with, on behalf of peace, that were the ultimate power.
1 Statistics on war deaths from 1700 to 1087 can be found in Ruth Sivard, World Military
and Social Expenditures 1987-88 (World Priorities, 1988), 29-31.
2 John A. Osmundsen, "Elephant Repel ant," New York Times, Jan. 2, 1988.
3 Harry Rositzke, Managing Moscow, Guns or Words (Morrow, 1984).
240
4 These comparisons of military spending and social needs come f
rom Sivard, World Military
and Social Expenditures, 1987-88, 35.
5 Jeffrey A. Merkeley, "The Stealth Fiasco," New York Times, Feb. 1, 1989.
6 New York Times, Jan. 17, 1988. Up to 1977 there had been over a thousand nuclear tests
by the six countries possessing bombs, the overwhelming majority of these, of course, by
the United States and the Soviet Union.
7 See Nick Kotz, Wild Blue Yonder (Pantheon, 1987), for the story of the B-1 bomber.
8 New York Times, Nov. 29, 1985.
9 The story of the four lost hydrogen bombs is told by Tad Szulc, The Bombs of Palomares
(Viking, 1967).
10 Boston Globe, Dec. 22, 1980.
11 Boston Globe, Nov. 15, 1981.
12 New York Times, June 18, 1980.
13 New York Times, Mar. 10, 1980.
14 Theodore Sorensen, Kennedy (Harper & Row, 1065), 770
15 Ibid., 795.
16 Steven Kul , "Mind-Sets of Defense Policy Makers," Psycho-History Review (Spring 1986): 21-23.
17 Wil iam Buckley, "Introduction," in Moral Clarity in the Nuclear Age, ed. Michael Novak (T.
Nelson, 1983).
18 Walter Stein, ed.. Nuclear Weapons and Christian Conscience (Merlon Press, 1981).
19 New York Times, July 5, 1989.
20 Gene Sharp, Making Europe Unconquerable (Bal inger, 1985).
21 Gene Sharp et al.. To Bid Defiance to Tyranny: Nonviolent Action and the American
Independence Movement, quoted by Bob Irwin, "Nonviolent Struggle and Democracy in
American History," Freeze Focus (Sept. 1984). See also Ronald M. McCarthy, "Resistance Politics and the Growth of Paral el Government in America, 1765-1775," in Resistance,
Politics, and the American Struggle for Independence, 1765-1775, ed. Conser, McCarthy,
Toscano, and Sharp (Lynne Rienner, 1986).
22 New York Times, July 29, 1989.
23 Bernard Lown and Wes Wal ace, "Where Do Americans Stand on Testing?" New York
Times, July 22, 1989.
24 Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fal of the Great Powers (Random House, 1987), surveys the
last 500 years of history and concludes that heavy military spending has ruined the
economies of great powers and ultimately hurt their security.
25 New York Times, Mar. 4, 1985.
26 Caspar W. Weinberger, "Arms Reductions and Deterrence," Foreign Affairs (Spring 1988).