After twelve months of war, pacifism is back in fashion. That is obvious. Pacifists have a good reputation. They may be naive or woolly sock, they are against war. Who isn’t, especially in the Netherlands where commercial spirit and humility have pollinated each other for centuries? Also now. Some Dutch pacifists are against it arms deliveries to Ukraine. Others guiltily suggest that Russian aggression is partly provoked by us is. And a former thinker of the nation, who unconcernedly opportunistically calls himself an ‘occasional pacifist’, piously pleads for discretion.
If only it were that simple. There’s more to pacifism than John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’.
There are pacifists of all shapes and sizes. Biblically chastened pacifists, who turn the other cheek to an attacker when they have just been struck on the one – for example, writer Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910). Ethical pacifists who believe that their society is already ‘structurally’ violent even without blows – theologian Hannes de Graaf (1911-1991). Anarchists, who believe that the state should not impose conscription on citizens – activist Bart de Ligt (1883-1938). Christian socialists, who fear that the bomb will destroy creation – Pastor Jan Buskes (1899-1980). Fellow Travelers, who are not against revolutionary violence and thus end up in the slipstream of communism – my distant great-uncle, Anabaptist minister ‘red’ Frits Kuiper (1898-1974). Anti-imperialists, who want to thwart western colonialism – independence fighter Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948). Internationalists, who want to break the nationalist military-industrial complex because it diverts workers from socialism – politician Jean Jaurès (1859-1914).
However different their intentions, pacifists have one thing in common. Pacifism is theory and practice, action and reflection. In their pursuit of a peaceful (nuclear) weapon-free world, pacifists do not run away from their own responsibility. They can go to jail if they refuse service. They risk being beaten up if they non-violently block a weapons shipment. Pacifists do not choose a safe haven. On the contrary, they are more at risk than columnists like myself.
In my school and student days I was a member of the Pacifist Socialist Party, a party that tauntingly distinguished itself from Moscow or Beijing communists as well as Western socialists with the slogan ‘socialism without the atom bomb’. At a Ukraine meeting in the village church of Huizum (Leeuwarden) I recently met some former party members. They put the knife on the table under the organ and pulpit: is there still room for pacifism in this time of war? The conversation went something like this.
Pacifists are not saints. For example, pilot Adriaan Viruly (1905-1986) was against nuclear weapons but for ‘enlightened despotism’. Nevertheless, the crux for all is that civil disobedience is non-violent. After all, you recognize the goal by the means.
However, this principle cannot be changed. The question of whether all nonviolent means have been exhausted is up to those who are oppressed. Pacifists in the 1960s admired the Czechoslovaks who fought the Soviet army by climbing onto Russian tanks in the streets, but they did not demand that the Vietnamese also attack the Americans with illegal newspapers alone.
That is no different in 2023. What is the nature of the aggression faced by the Ukrainians? And do they themselves see salvation in non-violent resistance? The latter is simple. Ukrainians want in great majority fight for their political and cultural existence. The first question is also simple. In Russia, revenge and violence have become the core values of the state. The Putin regime can be compared to that of Mussolini.
This character of the Kremlin regime determines the proportionality of the pacifist response to Russia’s war. The broken gun is now nothing more than a pathetic gesture.
Hubert Smith is a journalist and historian. He writes a column here every other week.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of February 23, 2023