Non-Violent Principles

   Though there may be some disagreement among us on the relative value of violent and nonviolent* confrontation of the sanctions issue, study and experience cause me to come down four-square on the side of nonviolence for the following reasons:

1. Nonviolence maintains the moral/ethical "high ground". Our purpose is to persuade the American public, and through them, the Congress/Administration. By maintaining the moral/ethical "high ground", we are more likely to attract allies who might be opposed to violent approaches.
2. Since we are confronting a violent process (the sanctions), it makes no sense to me to use analogous methods to confront the issue. If we use violent methods, we are likely to loose support from those whom we need as allies, and we leave ourselves open to charges of hypocrisy.
3. Nonviolent confrontation is designed to persuade; violent confrontation is designed to coerce. One goal of nonviolent confrontation is, through persuasion, to turn adversaries into neutrals and neutral parties into allies. Violent confrontation can only "succeed" when the balance of violent power is in your favor. In confronting the government, this is clearly not the case.
4. Nonviolent confrontation is much safer. Psychologically (putting on my hat as a practicing clinical psychologist), it is quite difficult (though not impossible) to respond violently to nonviolent confrontation. However, violent confrontation sends a very strong psychological invitation to respond in kind.
5. nonviolence, because it requires organization, training, emotional balance and concentration, will not "get out of hand", as violent actions sometimes do.
6. a personal observation: I've done both, and nonviolence feels stronger and more consistent.

* By "nonviolent confrontation", I mean assertive, even (polite) "in-your-face" actions, not mute passivity. If you read Gandhi's statements, it is clear that he employed quite confrontive actions, with the purpose of creating a moral tension within the adversary. The purpose was to create conditions where the adversary, through intense internal psychological dissonance, would change him/herself from within. For a description of some of Gandhi's methods (mirrored by Martin Luther King) see the movie "Gandhi", and/or read "Gandhi--Portrayal of a Friend" by E. Stanley Jones, the book that MLK said had "triggered his decision to use the method of...nonviolence in his civil rights movement for his people." In this book, Jones succinctly summarized Gandhi's methods by stating, "...he [Gandhi] would match his capacity to suffer against the others' capacity to inflict the suffering, his soul force [satyagraha] against physical force; he would not hate, but he would not obey, and he would wear down all resistance by an infinite capacity to take it." (p. 13)

Having said the above, let me note the arguments in favor of violence:

1. it tends to be more dramatic and will often command immediate media attention (often drawing media away from nonviolent actions). However, skillful and courageous nonviolence actions can also be quite media intensive.
2. violent actions (at least in our culture) require little training to implement.
3. serious violence requires less courage than serious nonviolence.
4. violence provides a temporary catharsis which can relieve emotional tension.

For training in nonviolent action, contact your local Friends Meeting (Quakers), Mennonites or Brethren; or the War Resisters League (339 Lafayette St., NY, NY 10012, 212-228-0450, wrl@igc.apc.org), and ask for two of their most useful publications, "War Resister's League Organizer's Manual" and "Handbook for Nonviolent Action". From the latter publication, please study "Nonviolent Response to Person Violence" (p.5) for a sample set of rules on nonviolent confrontation.