Associate professor: There is an alternative to death and destruction

Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has sent shock waves through most of Europe. At the same time, uncertainty lingers over whether the United States would actually come to our aid if Russia were to decide to attack NATO.

That is why Denmark is rearming, spending billions after billions on military hardware in the hope of deterring the Russian bear.

"Buy. Buy. Buy,” was the Prime Minister’s message to the Danish Armed Forces, and to the rest of us as well.

There is broad support for the rearmament. Both within the population and among the political parties. And this surprises Associate Professor of Philosophy at the School of Culture and Society Morten Dige, who has just published the book ‘Når freden står for skud – Pacifisme og retfærdig krig i politisk filosofi’ (only available in Danish, ed.). Here, he sets out his argument for pacifism as an alternative to military rearmament and war. 

"Where has pacifism gone?" he asks, referring to a time when an alternative to military and violent conflict resolution was represented at the Danish Parliament.

“The Danish Social Liberal Party was founded with disarmament as one of its cornerstones, and parties on the left have traditionally been anti-militarist as well. Today, they squirm when they argue that we need to rearm, but they say it nonetheless,” says Morten Dige. 

Pacifism is a real alternative

Pacifism. For many, pacifism is synonymous with images of hippies wearing peace signs around their necks, far away from the front lines, smoking peace pipes and proclaiming that we should make love, not war.

But according to Morten Dige, this is completely unreasonable.

For that rests on the assumption that militarists are the realists, while pacifists are the naïve dreamers,” argues Morten Dige, who dismisses the claim as a misleading straw man argument.

“The notion that pacifism is naive fails to recognise that pacifism is a different way of conducting conflict, rather than a denial that conflicts exist at all,”  says Morten Dige, referring to the fact that more than 3.200 major wars are known in history.

"Few, if any, have lived up to fairly stringent criteria for a just war, and it is beyond doubt that they have entailed enormous costs, claiming countless human lives and causing destruction on a massive scale,” he continues.

To understand pacifism, one must understand that pacifism is not the same as not resisting. It is about how to resist, who resists and by what means.

“The main current of pacifist thought emphasises a duty to oppose injustice, assault and aggression,” Morten Dige explains, continuing:

“Pacifism is based on the idea of undermining an opponent’s power rather than meeting it with force of the same kind, and on the belief that without obedience there is no power. Pacifism is resistance without violent means, and I do not believe that it can simply be written off as a real alternative to violent and military resistance.

The illusion of a just war

Throughout history, wars have moved national borders, created heroes and villains, cost millions of lives, and helped define who we are as people, nations, and civilisations.

As our societies have grown more advanced, we have agreed upon rules governing how we are allowed to wage war against one another. The Just War has become a concept that those in power have used to justify their violent actions, according to Morten Dige.

Roughly speaking, a war is just if two criteria are met:

You need a good reason to go to war, and in recent times, according to Morten Dige, that has meant that where sufficiently serious rights violations and abuses have occurred, the use of force may be justified.

But when that happens, the second criterion follows: The war must take place in a responsible manner so that the violence does not affect innocent people and civilians. 

“And that is precisely where things have fallen short in modern times, because modern wars have become as destructive as they have. The main rule is that most victims are civilians. In principle, you are not allowed to do that, which is why it has been necessary to come up with various justifications for why going to war can nevertheless be permitted. Those are precisely the kinds of justifications that I find deeply unsatisfactory,” says Morten Dige.

He uses Ukraine's defence against Russia as an example. Ukraine's defence fully meets the conditions for a just war, but at some point the war must also be won. This means that Ukraine is starting to bomb far behind Russian lines. This leads to the destruction of materiel but also the loss of innocent civilian lives, which in principle are just as valuable as the Ukrainians' own.

“We risk getting stuck on the fact that it was obviously the Russians who started it, and then we become trapped in the logic of armed conflict, where war takes on a life of its own. Suddenly, the focus shifts to all the wrongs committed by the other side and the need to retaliate for them,” says Morten Dige.  

History can teach us something

At a more fundamental level, however, Morten Dige believes we would do well to pause, shift our gaze away from the way we usually do things, and consider the relatively successful examples that show that pacifism can serve as an alternative to war.

"Even if you do resist in a non-violent way and lose, you're still in a better position because thousands of people haven't died, and because the infrastructure and cities aren't totally destroyed. This means that there is something to work with for a resistance movement."

Of course, Morten Dige does not believe that Ukraine should just lay down their weapons and switch to non-violent methods. 

“Ukraine had chosen a strategy centred on armed resistance in the event of a Russian invasion, and therefore that was, of course, what they had to do. It would be disastrous if they simply laid down their weapons. They would be overrun and lose their country.”

"Nor is that what pacifists propose. There could be other strategies for us than arming ourselves to the teeth to deter Russia. I suggest that we consider whether there is anything to be learned from the other methods of deterrence and defence that have existed throughout history,” says Morten Dige.

There are more and less successful examples, but the same can be said of war, Morten Dige points out, referring to Czechoslovakia’s resistance to the Soviet Union’s invasion in 1968 and Martin Luther King’s campaign against racial segregation in the United States as two examples of non-violent resistance as an alternative strategy.

“Czechoslovakia was occupied, but they managed to hold an overwhelmingly superior force at bay for a remarkably long time, much longer than they would have done through military defence, given how heavily outmatched they were. In addition, there was a very strong resistance movement and an underground government that kept the flame alive over the following twenty years, providing a foundation to build on when the Velvet Revolution came. And this with an intact population, rather than one in which hundreds of thousands had been slaughtered, and with cities left intact, unlike what Ukraine is dealing with,” Morten Dige points out.

In the United States, Martin Luther King led an organised, non-violent movement against racial segregation and the unequal treatment of Black and white Americans.

"Martin Luther King was good at keeping his eye on the ball at all times. What is the political conflict about? For the sake of the cause, you have to put aside all the provocations, the beatings you have suffered, and all those who have been killed. Once you start striking back yourself, you give people a reason to shift the focus away from the political conflict itself,” explains Morten Dige.

The Einstellung-effect usually...

As humans, we tend to solve tasks in the same way as we usually do. The brain wants to save time and energy, and therefore previously successful solutions create mental shortcuts in the brain, the so-called heuristics. The phenomenon is called the Einstellung-effect.

Morten Dige believes that this is an important element in the reason why we as a society repeatedly choose war as a solution. We don't see any other options when we feel threatened.

"Another obvious tendency is that we prepare for the previous war. Rearmament today is all about F35s, warships and everything we usually do, with the risk that it might become totally obsolete. The Russians learned that when they suddenly found themselves confronted by the drone defence system the Ukrainians had built,” says Morten Dige, who suggests that the alternative should at least be considered.

198 methods at your fingertips

What does non-violent pacifist resistance look like? It depends on the situation, says Morten Dige.

"If you gather for a large demonstration and are mowed down by security forces, you must of course stop doing it. But the same goes for military conflicts. The strategy must be adapted to the situation," says Morten Dige and points to another important aspect of non-violent resistance: It can be done by anyone. It is not only young men and women who can participate. During the great marches for civil rights in the United States, there were women and men, young and old, and children. The people stood together, and according to pacifist theory, this makes the resistance greater and better able to undermine the power of the aggressor.

There is, in fact, also a handbook developed by Gene Sharp and compiled in his book The Politics of Nonviolent Action.

Here, 198 methods of non-violent action are divided into three main categories. 

The enemy is in the wrong

Whether the resistance to injustice and aggression is violent or not, there are costs because resistance is actions that deviate from the norm.

"If pacifism is to work, the cause must be big enough, and so important that you too would be ready to send yourself or your young people to their deaths for it. A just war without weapons," says Morten Dige.

It requires a change in how we view the enemy, and a willingness not to reinforce the enemy image that the other side is trying to create as a justification for the war.

"By building a large army, we confirm the enemy's image of us as a threat. And if you bomb civilians far inside another country, you cannot really fault those who are under attack for supporting their own country's conduct of the war,” says Morten Dige, shifting the perspective: 

“If, instead, you think your enemy is in the wrong. That they are in the process of doing something wrong, then the opportunity for non-violent resistance arises. It takes great courage and forgiveness, but it also takes away the power the aggressors have by overruling it and apologizing for it."

Morten Dige agrees that just as military rearmament takes time, investments must also be made in pacifist, non-violent preparedness. But it is a possibility, and it is a real alternative to death and destruction, he maintains.

“If we were prepared to invest the same resources in civilian systems as we are willing to invest in military ones, I believe there is much to suggest that it could work. In any case, you can't just categorically reject it," concludes Morten Dige.

This text is machine translated and post-edited by Mie Skov Jeppesen.