Amid U.S. threats, Canada’s national security plans must include training in non-violent resistance
Author
- Richard Sandbrook | Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto
The invader cannot consolidate control if citizens and their institutions refuse to comply with its rule. The tactics involve a complete refusal to co-operate with the occupying force along with open defiance.
That means that governments at all levels in the invaded nation continue to supply only basic services: clean water, electricity and policing, for example. Governments resign and civil servants find ways to subvert every order issued by the invader.
Crowds fill urban squares in silent or derisory defiance of orders, making it apparent to all — the occupiers, the dictator’s audience back home, less committed citizens and global observers — who are the true purveyors of violence against non-violent people
Throughout the occupation, citizens and non-governmental organizations focus on subverting the loyalty and morale of the occupying troops and functionaries and rallying international support.
In Canada’s case, the long history of friendship with Americans would likely mean that the morale of the occupiers would be low. The aim is to encourage defections by soldiers and functionaries, and erode the support base of the dictator. This erosion of support could lead to the overthrow of the leader, or at least to his concoction of a compromise to cover a retreat.
Attracting international support to Canada’s cause would not be a challenge. Trump has already alienated most of humankind and foreign governments during his first weeks in office.
Obstacles
Non-violent resistance is most effective with nation-wide training, organization and leadership. The national government is best equipped to provide the facilities. Training of volunteers could include responding to natural disasters and emergencies, as well as implementing a civil defence strategy.
Yet partisan divides and apathy make such nationwide training difficult. It would likely be viewed with suspicion by right-wing populist forces in this era of conspiracy theories and misinformation.
Apathy might also be a problem.
These considerations suggest that top-down, apolitical training in civilian defence may not work. If so, training and organization should be the goal of as many existing civil society associations as possible: churches, synagogues, temples, civil rights groups, unions, Indigenous rights organizations, peace advocates and climate groups, for example.
The manual authored by Michael Beer, the longtime director of the Nonviolence International non-governmental organization, includes more than 300 tactics. Widespread training and organization can not only deter aggression but ensure countries remain free of tyrants.
https://theconversation.com/amid-u-s-threats-canadas-national-security-plans-must-include-training-in-non-violent-resistance-252451Open linkView original on lemmy.ca
Ah yes the tried-and-true defence against violent, expansionist fascists: nonviolence. /s
While you may not agree with it, non-violent tactics are a valid part of all resistance movements.
The same can be said for militant actions and sabotage.
In the past 25 years, name a single non-violent movement that accomplished their goals.
There are many examples throughout history. You can read about Erica Chenoweth's 3.5% rule for the general phenomenon. Regime changes are unusual, but not unheard of. It happened with Eduard Shevardnadze in 2003.
Not 25 years, but Gandhi is a rather famous example. There are loads of examples world wide, even until today.
I'm not saying it should be the only strategy, but it definitely should be A strategy
Complete noncompliance is how the Indians got the British out, so it is a valid tactic.
It's a valid tactic against those who feel shame. That group does not include the current US administration.
Oh, shame wasn't the point there. I doubt 1940s Britain was ashamed of their colonial empire either. The idea is to simply refuse to engage with the occupation administration and let it fall under its own weight.
Shame perhaps isn't quite the right concept, but you're going to have a hard time using nonviolent tactics against an opponent whose response to them is lethal violence—that is, they kill anyone who refuses to comply until people either start to comply or they run out of people, and they are quite willing to run out of people. Nonviolent tactics worked in India against the British because they wanted the labour of the Indian people, and therefore wiping them out wasn't in the cards. (Executing people, even those they considered "lesser", effectively at random also didn't fit in with their concept of moral superiority.) The same tactics would not have worked against Hitler.
In this case . . . I don't know. Trump has demonstrated depraved indifference to the survival of everyone including his countrymen, so it would come down to the beliefs and behaviour of people at the lower levels, who are not going to be consistent. They don't believe they need our labour, so that excuse is out.
Good point. I guess this sort of thing will inevitably need to be a backdrop to the actual violent resistance.
Hitler was defeated by a sit in after all
The German people are more representative of normal people who were afraid to do anything, thinking they'd be upstarts or alarmists, until it was far too late.
They Thought They Were Free by Milton Meyer
I guess you never heard of Ghandi?
Soooo....yer saying we should drop nukes?
And then, when the invaders look away in disgust and contempt, you shove a Maverick up their asses and blow them to Valhalla.
Fascists don't get to Valhalla
I am so sick of this constant emphasis on "non violence." We should be arming our citizens and training them for guerrilla warfare. We should be training citizens on how to make ieds.
I have no idea what you are responding to. Am I the "western regimes?"
Nah fuck that, violence is the only option with fascist thugs.
I know right? We already know we aren’t gonna stand a chance. Everything is off the table if I’m gonna die and lose my identity anyways.
A guerilla war with Canada would make afganistan look like a day at the beach, and Canada has the ability to launch attacks back.
It would be absolutely horrible for both sides. It's insane to believe these are real discussions we are having, despite the Trump supporting people I know ensuring me it would never come to this. Now no apologies to be found, they are just hiding and pretending it's not so bad.
Hopefully people look within themselves and feel some serious shame over supporting Trump.
Non violent resistance work if the other side has morals or empathy
That's a weird take.
We usually have two separatist movements bubbling along under the surface. Our federal and provincial governments sabotage each other for political points. We have a hereditary underclass that's shat on by most of our institutions, and the target of weird serial killers.
Our public health agency (tasked with preventing outbreaks) had neither a plan for dealing with outbreaks, nor PPE to protect health workers. Our military has been stuck in a procurement death march for as long as I've been alive, and has had a culture of sexual abuse for at least as long. Our foreign affairs department has been running an illegal (and immoral) civilian spying program for decades. Multiple provinces were teaching
guessingcuing into the 2010s. All levels of government try to block journalists access to information requests. We have a persistent shortage of healthcare providers, but seem unable to recognize foreign credentials or train more. Meanwhile, our healthcare costs skyrocket. And the housing crisis. And the cost of living crisis. And the post secondary funding crisis. And the opioid crisis.But aside from those things, we show truly average unity and institutional capacity.