ISSN 2631-746X (Print) & 2631-7478 (Online)

The Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis (JTPP) is a peer-reviewed, biannual, subscription-based, scholarly journal of contemplative cutting edge research and practice on subjects related to human social flourishing and peace.

Editor-in-Chief: Dr Jeremy A Rinker
Publisher: Abhijit Mazumder

ADVISORY BOARD

Dr Amii Omara-Otunnu •Dr Ashwani Kumar •Dr Bandana Purkayastha •Dr Jacint Jordana •Dr John Doyle •Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi •Ms Michelle Ndiaye •Dr Rahul Mukherji •Dr Shankari Sundararaman •Dr Vandana Shiva

JTPP (https://jtpp.uk), bringing together peace practitioners and academics, fills an important transdisciplinary gap that exists in current academic literature.

JTPP endeavours to support scholarship that highlights

○ the human potential for transformation,

○ a holistic and collaborative approach to complex systems,

○ the transdisciplinary nature of solutions to wicked social problems, and

○ a shared sense of purpose in human transnational activism for positive change.

JTPP thus provides a dynamic forum for sharing information and experiences primarily catering to academics, and activists particularly in the disciplines of Peace and Conflict Studies, Political Science, International Relations, Human Rights, History, as well as professionals, policymakers, organisations, institutions and individuals who nurture a firm belief in peace and human rights.

JTPP invites SUBMISSIONS from academics, scholar-practitioners, and social activists. Please see: Author’s Corner (https://jtpp.uk/authors-corner/) for Submission Guidelines.

JTPP follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics ( COPE ).

For SUBSCRIPTION , please see: https://jtpp.uk/subscription-plan/

Published by Frontpage Publications Limited (https://frontpagepublications.com), Level 2, 13 John Prince’s Street, London W1G 0JR, in both print and online versions, in August 2022.

In association with Peace and Justice Studies Association (https://www.peacejusticestudies.org).

ASSOCIATES at: Delhi, Honolulu, Istanbul, Kampala, Kolkata, London, Madrid, Norwalk

Cover photograph: Courtesy Santanu Mitra

Contents

Contributors

Editor-in-Chief’s Welcome and Introduction
   JEREMY A RINKER

‘Dear Friend’
   The Practice of Nonviolence in Gandhi’s Letters to Hitler
   KELLY RAE KRAEMER

Search for Peace by Analysing the Political Psychology of Berlin Wall Crossers
   KRISTEN RENWICK MONROE & BENJAMIN HOYT

Empowering One Health Peacemakers
   DIANA CHIGAS, DEBORAH KOCHEVAR, IAN JOHNSTONE and ELIZABETH MCCLINTOCK

Divergent Electoral Policy Preferences in the United States Causes, Impacts, and Potential Solutions
   DIANA BRANDUSE & STEPHEN J CHAPMAN

Between Peaceful Coexistence and Realism Understanding India’s Dilemma and Nuanced Position on Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
   REKHA DATTA

Kaleidoscope
   MEGHNA CHAKRABORTY

Book Reviews
   JEREMY A RINKER & DEAN J JOHNSON

All articles published in this journal are copyright protected.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study or review,
no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise)
without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any
person who does any contravention in relation to this
publication, under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988, may be liable to criminal
prosecution and civil claims for damages.

Contributors

BRANDUSE, DIANA is Assistant Professor of Political Institutions at Leiden University College, a liberal arts college in The Hague, The Netherlands. Diana received her PhD in Political Science from Binghamton University, USA in 2016; she specialises in comparative politics with a focus on political institutions, corruption and anticorruption and political parties. At Leiden University College she teaches within the Governance, Economics and Development major, one of the interdisciplinary themes of the liberal arts programme there.
(email: d.m.branduse@luc.leidenuniv.nl)

CHAKRABORTY, MEGHNA is currently pursuing her PhD in Human Rights from the University of Calcutta, India. She has graduated, at the top of her class, with Master in Human Rights, from the same university. Meghna has taught undergraduate students at Loreto College, Kolkata, India; she has also been a Guest Lecturer for Master’s students pursuing their degree in Human Rights from the University of Calcutta.
(email: meghnachakraborty6363@gmail.com)

CHAPMAN, STEPHEN J is Associate Professor of Political Science at Monmouth University, New Jersey, USA . Much of his research focuses on varying aspects of representation throughout the United States. In addition, he also has interest in analysing educational delivery modalities and interventions. Chapman regularly teaches courses on US political structures, representation, and research methods. He received his PhD from Binghamton University, USA in 2014.
(email: schapman@monmouth.edu)

CHIGAS, DIANA, JD, MALD, is Professor of Practice, International Negotiation and Conflict Resolution at The Fletcher School and serves as Senior International Officer and Associate Provost at Tufts University, USA. As Senior International Officer, she is responsible for leading the development and realisation of university-wide global strategy. Her research interests include negotiation and mediation in identity-based conflicts; evaluation of peacebuilding effectiveness; corruption and effective anti-corruption strategies in fragile conflict-affected states; impacts of humanitarian assistance on conflict and peace dynamics.
(email: diana.chigas@tufts.edu)

DATTA, REKHA, PhD, holds the Freed Endowed Chair in Social Sciences and is Professor of Political Science at Monmouth University in New Jersey, USA. Datta has served as Interim Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, and is a former Fulbright Senior Scholar. She has authored and co-edited five scholarly books including Contemporary India (Routledge, 2018). Her scholarly interests cover foreign policy analysis, domestic politics and foreign relations in South Asia, gender and development, gender-based violence, child labour, democracy and human security.
(email: rdatta@monmouth.edu)

HOYT, BENJAMIN is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Irvine, USA . His research interests include realist political theory and political psychology. Benjamin’s dissertation draws on the political thought of Bernard Williams to examine the problem of online misinformation within liberal democratic societies.
(email: bjhoyt@uci.edu)

JOHNSON, DEAN J is Director of Peace and Conflict Studies and Professor of Philosophy at West Chester University of Pennsylvania, USA . As an interdisciplinary scholar and activist, Johnson teaches courses in Peace Studies and Religious Studies; Johnson is also a consultant for nonviolent campaigns and initiatives. He provides workshops and training in the areas of nonviolent direct action, community organising, and (with his partner Melissa Bennett) anti-oppression, queer solidarity, and anti-racism.
(email: djohnson4@wcupa.edu)

JOHNSTONE, IAN, LLM, JD is Professor of International Law at The Fletcher School, USA . From 2018 -2019 he served as Dean ad interim. From 2013 to 2015, he was the Academic Dean. Johnstone served in the United Nations’ Executive Office of the Secretary-General and Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Johnstone is on the editorial boards of ‘Global Governance Journal’ and ‘International Organizations Law Review’. His recent book includes Research Handbook on Peace Operations and International Law (Editor, Edward Elgar Publishing 2020).
(email: ian.johnstone@tufts.edu)

KOCHEVAR, DEBORAH TURNER, PhD, GBA, DVM, served for 12 years as Dean and Henry and Lois Foster Professor at Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine and, subsequently, provost ad interim for Tufts University, USA. A former president and chair of the board of directors of the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges, Kochevar has published in peer-reviewed research and teaching journals. She has a special interest in translational medicine, international aspects of One Health education and global One Health diplomacy.
(email: deborah.kochevar@tufts.edu)

KRAEMER, KELLY RAE is Professor and Acting Chair of Peace Studies at the College of St Benedict/St John’s University in central Minnesota. She holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Hawai`i-Mānoa, USA, where she studied the roles of allies in social movements, and an EdM from Harvard University. Her current research interests include contemporary nonviolent action, unarmed struggle during the WWII , and the politics of gender and peace. Kraemer serves on the editorial board of the ‘Journal of Social Encounters’.
(email: KKraemer@CSBSJU.EDU)

McCLINTOCK, ELIZABETH, PhD, MALD, is Adjunct Assistant Professor of International Negotiations at The Fletcher School and the Executive Director of the Bridgeway Group, USA. She offers negotiation advice to parties in conflict, consulting on international mediation efforts, developing curricula, designing training, and implementing programming in negotiation, mediation, communication, conflict management, and leadership development worldwide. She has supervised multi-year projects in Burundi and Timor-Leste and managed a multi-year, multi-country capacity-building programme for the World Health Organization.
(email: elizabeth.mcclintock@tufts.edu)

MONROE, KRISTEN RENWICK is Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor of Political Science and founding Director of the UC Irvine Interdisciplinary Center for the Scientific Study of Ethics and Morality, USA. Her most recent book is The Unspoken Morality of Childhood: Family, Friendship, Self-Esteem and the Wisdom of the Everyday and a trilogy on moral courage, including the forthcoming When Conscience Calls: Moral Courage in an Age of Confusion and Despair.
(email: krmonroe@uci.edu)

RINKER, JEREMY A, PhD, the Editor-in-Chief of the ‘Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis’, is Associate Professor & Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Peace & Conflict Studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA where his research interests revolve around the centrality of justice discourse, trauma awareness, and collective resilience in movements aimed at transforming social conflict, historical injustices, and structural violence. His publications include Identity, Rights, and Awareness: Anticaste Activism in India and the Awakening of Justice through Discursive Practices (Lexington, USA , 2018), Realizing Nonviolent Resilience: Neoliberalism, Societal Trauma, and Marginalized Voice (with Jerry T Lawler, Peter Lang, 2020). (email: jr@jtpp.uk / jarinker@uncg.edu)

Disclaimer

While the information contained in this journal is believed to be true and accurate at the time of publication, neither the authors, editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors and/or omissions that may have been inadvertently made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the materials contained in this journal.

Editor-in-Chief’s Welcome and Introduction

We at the Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis (JTPP) are glad you have chosen to read us. We welcome back familiar readers and friends and heartily embrace those new to the JTPP—we are glad you are here!

With endless media to attract our limited human attention we know there is much else your eyes could feast on. For those concerned about the state of our conflictual and polarised world you have come to the right place! Sit back and relax; curl up with our present issue and tell us what you think! If you have an interest in the values and qualities of the peacemakers among us, this eighth issue of the JTPP (Vol. 4, No. 2) is a worthy choice for your time and attention. I promise, you will not be disappointed by the scope and depth of the critical pieces herein.

This issue’s call, focused on the broad theme of modelling the values of peace and restoration in a fractured/polarised world order by homing in on the vocation of the peacemaker, itself interrogates the complexity of human choice and decision-making. This issue’s focus supports the Peace and Justice Studies Association’s (PJSA’s) Fall 2022 conference theme, see: https://www.peacejusticestudies.org/conference/2022-call-for-proposals/, and interrogates a critical set of reflexive skills for those working in the fields of peace studies and conflict intervention.

What can we learn from those who would describe their vocation as that of a peacemaker? What does it mean to label your vocation as that of a peacemaker? What are the skills and core competencies of a true peacemaker? While these may seem simple questions, asking them opens many avenues of exploration about both our chosen and unchosen choices.

Parker Palmer once wrote:

‘Before I can tell my life what I want to do with it, I must listen to my life telling me who I am.’¹

This sums up the process of choosing a vocation; we are both choosing and chosen in this process. In short, finding one’s vocation is intricately related to one’s sense of identity. Peacemakers are born from hardships, violence, and injustice. In choosing to work for peace many are simply chosen, explaining that peacemaking was just what had to be done in the context of the moment.

The pieces in this issue, in moving from individual to international levels of analysis, all foreground questions of vocation and raise questions about bridging divides. What drives people to risk life and limb, or countries to choose sanction or neutrality, in response to conflict and difference? How is the choice of peace made on the ground in conflict? What factors impact social and political decision-making in conflict? While such questions centre around issues of social identity (the theme of JTPP’s next ninth issue), they also point to the means of valuing and skills of leadership in persuading others. What we value and how it relates to our sense of identity becomes our vocation; often conflict inspires or awakens our sense of both identity and vocation. The articles and book reviews in this issue all speak to human’s evolving sense of vocation and emerging sense of identity.

The first article in this eighth issue by Kelly Rae Kraemer entitled ‘ “Dear Friend”: The Practice of Nonviolence in Gandhi’s Letters to Hitler’, provides an important analysis of Gandhi’s two letters to Adolf Hitler during World War II. Arguing that these letters are illustrations of Gandhi’s ‘everyday practice of peace’ (Intro), Kraemer connects these practices to contemporary American political polarisation and provides lessons for how those on all sides of the current political divide can mindfully reframe their discourse to be more nonviolent and inclusive.

From this Gandhian analysis, the second article in this issue trains our focus towards the many impacts of World War II by analysing the psychology and decision-making of those that attempted to cross the Berlin Wall during the post-war, Cold War period. Kristen Renwick Monroe and Benjamin Hoyt in their article entitled ‘Search for Peace by Analysing the Political Psychology of Berlin Wall Crossers’, develop a first of its kind narrative analysis of the published interviews of those that survived the crossing of the Berlin Wall during the height of the Cold War. More than simply economic or political motivations, Monroe and Hoyt find that people made this arduous decision to cross the Berlin Wall for ‘the package of motivations that each Wall crosser discussed was often complex, with motives intricately intertwined’ (p.49). These intertwined reasons speak to the precarity of peacemaking and draw readers’ attention to the complex synergies between practices of peace and other helping professions.

The third article builds on this theme by connecting peacemaking with the work of community health workers. In ‘Empowering One Health Peacemakers’, Diana Chigas, Deborah Kochevar, Ian Johnstone and Elizabeth McClintock argue that health workers are exemplar of peacemakers by exploring the role of what they call one health professionals in the global health challenges facing the world today. Insight from this article frames a role for one health peacemakers that engages ‘with national and local actors as partners to respond to cross-cutting challenges for managing responses to multifactorial health crises (p.56) and foregrounds the idea that these workers ‘need not all be experts in the technical side of infectious disease outbreaks’ (pp.61-62). This unique approach to addressing the ‘wicked problems’ ² brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic provides another example of the broadening of our conceptions of what it means to be a peacemaker.

The fourth article in this issue shifts to the US national political arena to explore the causes and solutions to electoral gerrymandering in the US electorate. Diana Branduse and Stephen J Chapman in their contribution entitled ‘Divergent Electoral Policy Preferences in the United States: Causes, Impacts, and Potential Solutions’, ‘offer a summary view of the legislative action in relation to electoral policies, beginning in the early 2000s to better ‘explore potential strategies to restore the fractured nature of electoral policies in Republican-held states’ (p.86). Their desire from this line of research is that ‘it may lead to the restoration of key values for a democratic culture’ (p.102), a critically important goal for contemporary peacemakers.

The last article, which is extremely timely given Russia’s unjustified war with Ukraine, takes on a more geopolitical level of analysis. Rekha Datta, in this final full length academic manuscript, entitled ‘Between Peaceful Coexistence and Realism: Understanding India’s Dilemma and Nuanced Position on Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine’, explores India’s foreign policy of nonalignment and peaceful coexistence in the context of the invasion of Ukraine. Datta’s insightful piece chronicles India’s dilemma in finding ‘a place as a power to reckon with in the post-Cold War balance of power’ (p.127) and calls for India to strategically reconsider its ‘ambivalent stance’ (p.128) towards the war in Ukraine.

Yet again, this approach raises important questions about what it means to be in the vocation of peacemaking. Whether as a diplomat, judicial activist, health worker, Wall crosser, or letter writer, this issue provides guideposts for being an effective peacemaker in many walks of life.

Finally, two book reviews by Dean J Johnson (review of Kazu Haga, 2020) and me (review of Carney & Miklian, 2022) highlight the spiritual and moral roots of nonviolent response to destructive conflict and genocide. Collectively the writings in this issue will challenge you to think critically about your own responses to violence and injustice.

Our regular Kaleidoscope section connects current events to the themes raised in this issue. While we may not all choose the vocation of peacemaking, knowing what drives the decisions of those that do is a valuable contribution to world peace.

Again, I thank you for picking up this issue of the JTPP and encourage you to share this issue with friends, colleagues, fellow peacemakers, and anyone who could benefit from the excellent and critical analysis herein. Encourage them to subscribe to the JTPP (https://jtpp.uk/subscription-plan) and support our work!

We need your help increasing our readership and welcome your feedback and support.

With metta (loving kindness and compassion for a fractured world),

Jeremy A Rinker, PhD

Department of Peace and Conflict Studies

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA

Editorin-Chief, Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis (JTPP)

E: jr@jtpp.uk / jarinker@uncg.edu

August 2022

NOTE

1 Palmer, Parker, ‘Let Your Life Speak: Listening for the Voice of Vocation’, San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1999

2 Rittel, Horst W J & Webber, Melvin M, ‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’, Policy Sciences , Vol. 4, No. 2 (June 1973), pp.155-69

‘Dear Friend’: The Practice of Nonviolence in Gandhi’s Letters to Hitler

Kelly Rae Kraemer

ABSTRACT

At the onset of World War II, Mohandas Gandhi wrote two separate letters to Adolf Hitler. Though neither letter ever reached the Führer, both are readily accessible, via Internet, to 21st Century readers, for whom the content of the letters may prove both alarming and instructive. Why did Gandhi address the chief Nazi as his ‘Dear Friend’? Why did he write with such profound respect and humility when addressing a man accused of ‘monstrous’ acts? Did he really believe his appeals would persuade Hitler to end the war?

This article will examine Gandhi’s letters to Hitler as notable examples of the Mahatma’s everyday practice of peace. His sympathetic approach to the Führer, models a deep practice of nonviolent values which, while quite shocking to those of us working in today’s ‘woke’ environment, can, if we approach it with open minds, provide an opportunity to explore the strategic value of Gandhi’s principled methods. Understanding the nonviolent strategy we find deeply embedded in these short letters can offer us useful guidance on how to talk to people we disagree with, how to restore community relationships in our increasingly fractured and polarised societies, and how to establish today’s truths as we understand them in a world where the existence of truth is increasingly debated. If we approach our opponents as ‘dear friends’, we can restore and rebuild nonviolence as the foundation of our own peace praxis.

KEYWORDS

Nonviolence, polarisation, communication, Gandhi, Hitler

INTRODUCTION

‘Libtard!’ ‘Birther!’ ‘Snowflake!’ ‘Deplorable!’ ‘Social Justice Warrior!’ ‘MAGAt!’ ‘Feminazi!’ ‘Wingnut!’ Those of us living, studying, and organising in the United States today are well aware of the degraded levels to which our civic discourse has sunk. Fake news, political positions, so polarised, that facts matter less than the identity of the person proclaiming them, and name calling in place of reasoned debate are now the hallmarks of everyday political speech. We’ve even reached the point where sucker-punching the leader of a hate group, as happened to white supremacist Richard Spencer, while a television reporter interviewed him on camera, brings not just cheers from those experiencing vicarious satisfaction, but applause for what many seem to view as a meaningful political action. Crafters marketing their wares on Etsy are even making money selling merchandise emblazoned with slogans like ‘Punch More Nazis’ to those who don’t distinguish emotional satisfaction from victory. The dehumanising of our political discourse carves ever more permanent lines between left and right, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican.

Left/right divisions have also begun to surface on college campuses in new ways, with each side decrying the other’s efforts to suppress ‘free speech’. While some students boldly take their stands, as college students will do, many—maybe even most—claim more reluctance than ever to speak their minds. They worry, not only that others might disagree and attack them verbally, but also that others might attack them physically on campus, or bitterly, virally, and without restraint, through social media. After Donald Trump took the oath of office as President of the United States, the polarisation, name-calling, and cyberbullying escalated, and they continue unabated, now that Joe Biden is President. Many frustrated young people, especially those of an activist bent, are turning to peace and conflict studies for guidance about how to talk to ‘those people’.

But it’s not just young people asking these questions. A good and thoughtful friend of mine, now retired after a long career in higher education and feeling frustrated by unproductive conversations with ‘the other side’ in our gerrymandered conservative Congressional district, asked me one day: ‘What would Gandhi do in a situation like this? How did Gandhi talk to people whose ideas he found morally reprehensible? If he were alive today, how would Gandhi talk to Trump?’ I thought I had a ready answer: ‘Probably the same way he tried to talk to Hitler.’ But I also realised that, although I had read each of Gandhi’s two letters to Hitler more than once, at that moment, I was not prepared to explain Gandhi’s approach in any detailed, coherent, meaningful fashion. I did, however, believe that the answer to this question could prove instructive for those of us struggling to communicate across deep political, cultural, and social divides.

So I decided to go back and take a closer look at the two letters Mohandas Gandhi wrote to Adolf Hitler, hoping a careful reading might shed some light on the Mahatma’s approach to conversations with someone whose politics he abhorred. In order to systematically investigate Gandhi’s approach, I turned to the methods of discourse analysis, examining his texts as linguistic exercises in power, that is, attempts to use words to influence the reactions and response of his audience. James Paul Gee, Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at Arizona State University, explains that all language is political, in the sense that it is an attempt to communicate one’s own perspective in an effort to influence others:

When we speak or write we always take a particular perspective on what the “world” is like. This involves us in taking perspectives on what is “normal” and not; what is “acceptable” and not; what is “right” and not; what is “real” and not; what is the “way things are” and not; what is the “way things ought to be” and not; what is “possible” and not; what “people like us” or “people like them” do and don’t do; and so on and so forth, again through a nearly endless list... Politics is part and parcel of using language.¹

Gandhi’s letters to Hitler are very much political, in this sense. They focus on what was normal and not normal in the world; how things were (World War II) and how things should have been (nonviolent transformation of conflict); and what Hitler was doing (waging war), versus what Gandhi thought he should have been doing (pursuing peaceful solutions). Gee adds that ‘far from exonerating us from looking at the empirical details of language and social action and allowing us simply to pontificate, an interest in politics, demands that we engage in the empirical details of language and interaction.’ ²

As a qualitative, interpretive method for examining the use of language ‘in its interactional context, asking how narrative is shaped by, and helps to shape, the particular interactions in which it arises’,³ discourse analysis can give structure to our reading of Gandhi’s letters, while allowing us to engage deeply with his texts. My methodology, in brief, involves exploring the social and historical context in which Gandhi wrote the two letters, identifying themes that appear in the letters, and analysing these themes as artefacts of the social and historical contexts in which they arose. Using discourse analysis in this way, I have found that both letters are carefully structured around three typical Gandhian themes:

(1) respect for the humanity of the other;

(2) pursuit of the truth, at all times and under all circumstances; and

(3) nonviolence, or taking action while refusing to do harm.

Gee adds that ‘far from exonerating us from looking at the empirical details of language and social action and allowing us simply to pontificate, an interest in politics, demands that we engage in the empirical details of language and interaction.’

For Gandhi, nonviolence moved beyond merely refraining from physical violence to encompass ‘the practice of active love towards one’s oppressors and enemies in the pursuit of justice, truth, and peace.’⁴

Before examining the contents of the letters, I’ll share some background information to provide historical context. I’ll briefly describe each of the letters, then, I’ll explore each of the three themes as they appear in each of the letters, and discuss their place in Gandhi’s nonviolent philosophy and methods. Finally, while acknowledging we live in very different times and cultures from Gandhi, I’ll explore some lessons we might learn from his approach to difficult conversations and then, try to apply those lessons to the uncomfortable dialogues in which many of us find ourselves engaged today. First, some background.

BACKGROUND

Gandhi wrote two letters to Adolf Hitler, both in English. He sent the first letter from his Sevagram Ashram near Wardha, in the Indian state of Maharashtra, on 23 July 1939, fewer than six weeks before Germany’s invasion of Poland led Great Britain to declare World War II.⁵ After the war began, unaware that the British government had prevented his letter from reaching Hitler, he published it in his weekly journal, Harijan.⁶ He sent the second letter from the same location seventeen months later, on Christmas Eve (24 December 1940).⁷ In the first letter,

Gandhi appealed to Hitler to prevent the impending war; in the second, with war already raging, he urged him to consider possibilities for peace.

NOTES

1 Gee, James Paul, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, New York: Routledge, 1999, p.2

2 Gee, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, p.2

3 De Fina, Ann & Johnstone, Barbara, ‘Discourse Analysis and Narrative’ in Tannen, Deborah, Hamilton, Heidi E & Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis [Second Edition], Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2015, p.152

4 Dear, John (ed.), Mohandas Gandhi: Essential Writings. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002, p.94

5 Gandhi, Mohandas, ‘200. Letter to Adolf Hitler’, Collected Works of Mohandas Gandhi, Vol. 76, Maharashtra, India: Gandhi Sevagram Ashram, 1999, pp.156-57, retrieved from http://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/gandhi-literature/collected-works-of-mahatma-gandhi-volume-1-to-98.php on 15 May 2022

6 Gandhi, Rajmohan, Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the Empire, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007, p.422

7 Gandhi, Mohandas, ‘520. Letter to Adolf Hitler’, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 79, Maharashtra, India: Gandhi Sevagram Ashram, 1999, pp.453-456, retrieved from http://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/gandhi-literature/collected-works-of-mahatma-gandhi-volume-1-to-98.php on 15 May 2022

Search for Peace by Analysing the Political Psychology of Berlin Wall Crossers

Kristen Renwick Monroe & Benjamin Hoyt

ABSTRACT

Why did people risk their lives to escape the Berlin Wall? Despite its political significance and the human suffering it evoked, we know virtually nothing about why people chose to cross the Berlin Wall.

No systematic analysis of the political psychology of crossers exists. The few interviews with successful crossers locate so strongly in Cold War assumptions that speakers seldom expand beyond one simple explanation: political freedom. A narrative analysis of 40 published interviews with crossers from 1961-1989 reveals a more nuanced psychological portrait of crossers.

Political reasons ranged from ideological doubt and discontent to cultural longings, specifically yearning to see the world outside and enjoy greater socio-political autonomy. The desire for individual dignity—to not have to sneak simply to hear Beatles music—played another critical political factor, as did the desire to avoid prostrating one’s self before political authorities who controlled every aspect of life. Economic drives also existed, with craving better opportunity out-weighing the desire for more goods. People did not go just to shop, one crosser said. Finally, love is not an explanation frequently found in academia, yet the love of family or a romantic partner played key roles in political decisions to leave.

KEYWORDS

Escaping totalitarianism, political psychology, freedom, Berlin Wall

INTRODUCTION

In May 1962, 14-year-old Wilfred Tews decided to take a swim. The idea of a high school-aged boy going for a dip calls to mind any number of cheerful images but Tews’ decision was not an act of Spring recreation. Tews dove into the water to evade armed guards, and the water he dove into was the canal system demarcating East and West Berlin.

In 1960, Tews’ family had travelled from West Germany to the East but by 1962 Wilfred had been denied entry into a secondary school for ‘refusing to distribute leaflets for a Communist youth group’ (Ahonen, 2010). Surfacing from his dive on the Western side of the canal, he realised he had been shot.

I got hit in my lungs, so I spat blood and could no longer dive. I continued swimming, then the other things happened. My leg was hanging limply. One of my arms was no longer functioning. There was some stair-head where ships can land and I managed to roll onto it. I was slowly bleeding to death. One doesn’t really care about anything anymore. Nothing (Tews, 2011).

Nihilism contrasts starkly with the outlook usually offered as a motive to cross the Berlin Wall. Wouldn’t one have to care about something, quite deeply, in fact, to risk crossing a border of 165.7 kilometres, patrolled by thousands of dogs and guards ordered to shoot-to-kill? Indeed, built to halt the crippling exodus from East Germany, the Wall was engineered with both physical and psychological deterrence in mind. Yet despite its menacing obstacles––from barbed wire, mines, and self-firing nail guns––people still tried to escape. Why? For all we know about the Berlin Wall’s political and historical significance, we know little about the psychology that drove people to cross the Berlin Wall. What were their motivations?

To answer this question, we review relevant literature and construct a narrative interpretation of 40 interviews with individuals who successfully crossed the Berlin Wall. Three primary motivations for wall-crossing emerge: (a) political discontent, (b) pursuit of greater opportunities, and (c) family reasons or romantic love. Within these broad categories, tremendous variation exists between reasons given by individual escapees and a dynamic interplay within this typology, with all three factors playing a critical role in how desperate someone was to leave East Germany.

Part 1 reveals the need for systematic empirical analysis by demonstrating that the existing literature focuses almost exclusively on one narrow political explanation for wall-crossings: people left because they hated Communism, an assumption our empirical work challenges. Part 2 presents a broader theoretical and methodological paradigm for understanding wall-crossing, one developed to allow speakers themselves to map the psychological terrain of political choice. Part 3 applies our narrative interpretive methodology to a dataset of over 40 published interviews of wall-crossers, drawn from The New York Times articles from the period during which the Wall existed plus documentaries, and contemporary historical materials of published interviews with crossers.

LITERATURE

Background

What was the Berlin Wall? Huge, guarded concrete barriers erected by the German Democratic Republic (GDR), beginning 13 August 1961, to stem the flood of Germans fleeing the GDR, much of which occurred through Berlin. Designed to divide Berlin physically and ideologically, these barriers––collectively known as ‘The Wall’––included guard towers along large concrete walls, a wide area known as the ‘death strip’ that contained anti-vehicle trenches, ‘fakir beds’ and other defences. From 1961 until its destruction (November 1989), the Wall isolated West Berlin from virtually all of East Germany and East Berlin. Before the Wall, Berlin was an easy point through which some 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR since it was relatively straightforward to cross the border from East to West Berlin and then travel to West Germany or other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989 the Wall prevented most such emigration, with over 100,000 people attempting to escape from East Germany, but only around 5,000 people succeeding in escaping over the Wall, where the estimated death toll ranged from 136 to over 200.

The few books about crossers are mostly escape-narratives (Shandrake, 1978; Kemp, 1987; Hilton, 2001). Severely limited by Cold War ideology, these books reflect a seldom-articulated premise that people risked their lives for political freedom and that alone. Another factor limiting the reliability of the existing literature on crossers is the incentives offered to GDR escapees to claim they were political refugees (Stueck, 1968). While largely true, it is not accurate that an aversion to the politics and culture of the GDR was a necessary pre-condition for deciding to make the attempt. Even among those who crossed for political reasons alone, we find tremendous deviation from a simple desire for liberal freedoms. In many other cases, the desire to flee––which feelings of political persecution or cultural deprivation must inevitably engender––was either mediated or reinforced by familial ties, financial opportunity, or romantic love.

Even among those who crossed for political reasons alone, we find tremendous deviation from a simple desire for liberal freedoms. In many other cases, the desire to flee––which feelings of political persecution or cultural deprivation must inevitably engender––was either mediated or reinforced by familial ties, financial opportunity, or romantic love.

Omissions

Surprisingly, there exists no literature on the psychology of Wall crossers. Little suggests what drives people more generally to take such risks. Major’s analysis ofrepukblikflucht, the East German term for leaving the GDR for the West, finds a psychological phenomenon that convinced East German leaders of the necessity for an ‘anti-fascist protection rampart’ (Major, 2010). Prior to the Wall, skilled workers left the East en masse, resulting in a brain drain in the period immediately preceding the Wall’s construction (CIA, 1961).

Prior to the Wall, skilled workers left the East en masse , resulting in a brain drain in the period immediately preceding the Wall’s construction.

Using primary source documents and FRG andGDR government data, Major finds this process not simply a panicked flight in the face of a botched implementation of collectivisation and the 1953 East German uprising. Instead, republikflucht reflected political events without being determined by them.

Using primary source documents and FRG and GDR government data, Major finds this process not simply a panicked flight in the face of a botched implementation of collectivisation and the 1953 East German uprising. Instead, republikflucht reflected political events without being determined by them. While emigration spiked at times, it was more a continual problem for theGDR than one might have guessed. Though some crossers fled in a furtive way, other workers used the threat of flight to extract concessions from theGDR leadership (Major, 2010). Since Major never examines wall-crossing or crossers in a truly sustained way, since his discussion focuses almost entirely on the pre-Wall period and for his main focus is on those left behind, Major’s work offers extensive historical and cultural context but no conclusive answer on the psychology that led people to flee.

Empowering One Health Peacemakers

Diana Chigas, Deborah Kochevar, Ian Johnstone and Elizabeth McClintock*

ABSTRACT

Physicians, health workers, veterinarians, conservation scientists and other multi-sectoral One Health professionals are not normally thought of as peacemakers. Conversely, diplomats, mediators, peacekeepers, and humanitarian aid workers are not normally thought of as health practitioners. However, an examination of the global health challenges facing our world now reveals that these two sets of professionals can and must work together to manage conflict, deal with health crises, and encourage the values of peace in our polarised world. Tufts’ Fletcher School, USA has launched an effort to support these innovative One Health peacemakers as they face the unprecedented challenge of controlling infectious disease outbreaks in conflict-affected areas. Like traditional peacebuilding, this work has uncovered several factors that these unique peacemakers must consider: (1) the importance of contextual knowledge; (2) the danger of ‘over-securitising’ the response to what is a multi-sectoral crisis; (3) the need to identify pathways of influence across all levels of government; and (4) the demand for skills in ‘health diplomacy’—the ability to engage effectively with a multiplicity of actors in multiple settings in a fast-changing environment. This article explores our work to date and offers six courses of action that One Health peacemakers must integrate into their approach to deal with controlling infectious disease outbreaks in conflict-affected areas: coordinating an effective response across actors and geographies; using international law and institutions to strengthen the response; communicating and engaging meaningfully with local populations; strengthening health systems; creating a model for sustainable funding; and managing unintended consequences of the response.

KEYWORDS

One Health, peacemaker, global health diplomat, conflict

* We would like to thank Dr Nahid Bhadelia and Dr Gerald Keusch for furthering our understanding of infectious disease outbreaks and how to improve interventions to address them. We thank Stefan Tschauko for his support during the symposium and Regina Portilla de Rosenzweig and Quamrul Hassan for their ongoing support of our One Health diplomacy curriculum development efforts.

INTRODUCTION

Physicians, health workers, veterinarians, conservation scientists and other multi-sectoral One Health professionals are not normally thought of as peacemakers. Conversely, diplomats, mediators, peacekeepers, and humanitarian aid workers are not normally thought of as health practitioners. However, as an examination of the global health challenges facing our world now reveals these two sets of professionals can and must work together to manage conflict, deal with health crises, and encourage the values of peace in our polarised world. Indeed, as global health challenges mount and intersect with increasingly volatile political, economic, and social dynamics, the role for a new kind of diplomat is emerging: The One Health peacemaker.

The term, One Health peacemaker, requires some definition. For the purposes of this article, we define One Health as follows:

One Health professionals, diplomats, mediators, can and must work together to manage conflict, deal with health crises, and encourage the values of peace in our polarised world. Indeed, as global health challenges mount and intersect with increasingly volatile political, economic, and social dynamics, the role for a new kind of diplomat is emerging:
The One Health peacemaker.

One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems... It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent. . .

[A One Health] approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to sustainable development (WHO, 2021).

According to the United Nations, ‘peacemaking generally includes measures to address conflicts in progress and usually involves diplomatic action to bring hostile parties to a negotiated agreement’ (UN Peacekeeping Definitions). Our definition of a One Health peacemaker broadens the definition put forth by theUN. We would describe the One Health peacemaker as a professional based in an intergovernmental, governmental or non-governmental organisation tasked with achieving the goals of diplomacy and peacemaking using a One Health framework through negotiation and conflict resolution, political and legal analysis, communication and persuasion, peacebuilding and community engagement. The One Health peacemaker engages with national and local actors as partners to respond to cross-cutting challenges for managing responses to multifactorial health crises, including operating in conflict settings, responding to and winning the trust of local communities, constructing resilient health systems and ensuring good governance.

A key premise for the One Health peacemaker is that the well-being of people is closely connected to animal and environmental health, especially in the context of zoonotic viral infectious diseases. Environmental circumstances such as deforestation may drive increased exposure of people to viral zoonoses at high-risk wildlife interfaces. Cultural habits related to consumption of wildlife meat may be the basis for the One Health peacemaker to engage partners and governments around prevention and behaviour change initiatives. While responding to health crises is a front-line requirement for One Health diplomacy, enabling prevention of outbreaks using diplomatic tools accomplishes a far more lasting and financially sustainable outcome. ¹

A key premise for the One Health peacemaker is that the well-being of people is closely connected to animal and environmental health, especially in the context of zoonotic viral infectious diseases. Environmental circumstances such as deforestation may drive increased exposure of people to viral zoonoses at high-risk wildlife interfaces. Cultural habits related to consumption of wildlife meat may be the basis for the One Health peacemaker to engage partners and governments around prevention and behaviour change initiatives.

The One Health peacemaker is not the same actor as a global health diplomat. Global health diplomats are frequently identified as Health Attachés or other official representatives of government tasked with addressing public health challenges in diplomatic fora (Brown et al, 2018). The One Health peacemaker differs from a global health diplomat in that they operate in a larger number of contexts and are not limited to an official government role. Importantly, One Health peacemakers work in service of goals in addition to the promotion of public health. For example, they may further the goals of peace in conflict-affected contexts or advocate for or facilitate the development of policies to address climate change at a national or regional level. Much as ‘peacebuilding aims to reduce the risk of lapsing or relapsing into conflict by strengthening national capacities at all levels for conflict management, and to lay the foundation for sustainable peace and development’ (UN Peacekeeping Definitions), the One Health peacemaker seeks to enhance the capacity of the community, institution, or country, to address the ‘core issues that affect the functioning of society and State’ (UN Peacekeeping Definitions), in promotion of health as well as many other important intersecting issues that impinge on health.

Building on experience of the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 2018, this article explores ongoing work at Tufts’ Fletcher School to support these innovative One Health peacemakers, as they endeavour to control infectious disease outbreaks in conflict-affected states. The Ebola outbreak in the DRC in 2018 was the 10th that the country had faced since 1976. None of these outbreaks became pandemics, meaning they never spread across the DRC border or even throughout the country—even during the armed conflict and political volatility. To what is this success attributable? What can be learnt from the 2018-20 experience about the challenges of controlling disease outbreaks in conflict-affected areas?

It was with those questions in mind that The Fletcher School at Tufts University planned a conference on Controlling Infectious Disease Outbreaks: Conflict, Security and Global Health Diplomacy. A virtual symposium was held in March 2021, bringing together a diverse gathering of senior policy makers, experienced practitioners and experts to better understand the successes achieved in the DRC. While the focus on the DRC remained, the discussion expanded to include the Ebola outbreaks in West Africa in 2014, and the multiple challenges associated with COVID-19.

Among the many lessons learnt, symposium participants underscored the role that interveners play in managing disease outbreaks. Like traditional peacebuilders, these unique peacemakers must consider: (1) the importance of contextual knowledge; (2) the danger of over-securitising the response to what is a multi-sectoral crisis; (3) the need to identify pathways of influence across multiple sectors and all levels of government; and (4) the demand for skills in One Health diplomacy—the ability to engage effectively with a multiplicity of human, animal and environmental health actors in multiple settings, in a fast-changing environment.

NOTES

1 See Bernstein AS, Ando AW, Loch-Temzelides T, Vale MM, Li BV, Li H, Busch J, Chapman CA, Kinnaird M, Nowak K, Castro MC, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Ahumada JA, Xiao L, Roehrdanz P, Kaufman L, Hannah L, Daszak P, Pimm SL, Dobson AP, ‘The Costs and Benefits of Primary Prevention of Zoonotic Pandemics’, Sci Adv., Vol. 8, Issue 5, 2022

Divergent Electoral Policy Preferences in the United States Causes, Impacts, and Potential Solutions

Diana Branduse & Stephen J Chapman

ABSTRACT

This paper analyses the factors that lead to recent restrictive voting reforms throughout the United States. Such policies are a product of an ever-increasing polarised political environment, with the Republican Party attempting to restrict the access to the ballot in order to offer party members an electoral advantage. Using Strategic Party Government as a theoretical framework, we focus on the motivations of elected officials as well as the preferences of voters to account for the divergence in electoral policy positions. We also incorporate existing literature on voting institutions to further illuminate this linkage. Following the theoretical grounding, we explore multiple instances of enacted policies that affect the path to voting, including voter identification laws, changes to registration deadlines, and modifications to early voting processes. Finally, we provide potential avenues for reform. Understanding the indicators that lead to the passage can inform those looking to counter such policies. We explore multiple evidence-based strategies that can nullify the impacts on voters. These include voter education programmes, grassroots campaigns, among other possible tactics. While this would not rectify the splintered political environment, it would provide a template to restore marginalised voices, a core value within any democracy and an important tool for the peacebuilder vocation.

KEYWORDS:

Representation, electoral laws, democratic norms

INTRODUCTION

The outcome of the contentious 2020 US Presidential race produced baseless claims of voter fraud, deriving from outgoing President Trump. However, other Republican officials picked up on the talking point, pushing the notion there were issues with the legitimacy of the election. These ideas were supported by the numerous vote-by-mail exceptions made across states given the limitations due to COVID-19. Such talking points bolstered Trump supporters to attack the Capitol Building on 6 January 2021, with the hope of stopping or delaying the certification of the election results.

Such talking points bolstered Trump supporters to attack the Capitol Building on 6 January 2021, with the hope of stopping or delaying the certification of the election results.

Apart from the violent turmoil in the immediate aftermath, the subsequent year produced a litany of legislative action from Republican-led states relating to the electoral process. Such legislation is penned in the name of electoral security, yet many of these policies have the consequence of restricting access to ballot.

This analysis attempts to provide a rational framework for understanding the strategic behaviour of parties by employing Strategic Party Government as a theoretical framework (Koger & Lebo, 2017, 2012; Lebo, McGlynn & Koger, 2007). We begin by exploring the scholarly work on the specific electoral policies of interest. Following this, we delve into how the Strategic Party Government framework offers a way of understanding party behaviour even when a lack of evidence concerning voter fraud exists. Given that parties are strategic, Republicans limit where Democrats try to expand, all for the sake of electoral gains. We then offer a summary view of the legislative action in relation to electoral policies, beginning in the early 2000s extending through the current period of legislative attempts at reforming access to the ballot. Finally, we explore potential strategies to restore the fractured nature of electoral policies in Republican-held states by highlighting approaches that can be used to lessen the impact of divergent policies throughout the states. Furthermore, we discuss evidence concerning grassroots efforts that can help inform and assist voters, ultimately leading to a less polarised world.

Apart from the violent turmoil in the immediate aftermath, the subsequent year produced a litany of legislative action from Republican-led states relating to the electoral process.

ELECTORAL POLICIES OF INTEREST

There are many laws that can impact voter turnout. For the sake of this analysis, we focus on specific laws that directly impact the registration and voting process. Such policies include voter identification laws, limitations on vote-by-mail or early voting, limitations to registration deadlines, or the presence of an election-day registration law. While it’s not feasible to offer a comprehensive literature review here, it is important to offer scholarly context of each policy.

Voter identification laws have sparked the interest of scholars in the last few decades as states began enacting them at higher rates. Much of the evidence on voter identification laws is mixed, some finding a null effect (Alvarez, Bailey & Katz, 2008; Hood & Bullock, 2012) while others pointing out the difficulty in assessing such policies quantitatively (Grimmer et al, 2018). However, recent evidence places a strong emphasis on the disparate racial impact caused by such policies (Kuk, Hajnal & Lajevardi, 2020). This evidence meshes with existing work that shows minority voters are less likely to possess identification (Hood & Buchanan, 2019; Barreto et al, 2019), lending credibility to the potential racial effect.

Similarly, much of the work on early voting is unable to place a clear effect, with some finding a negative impact on turnout (Burden et al, 2014), providing the logic that it decreases the significance of election day. Others find little to no impact (Walker, Herron & Smith, 2019; Burden & Gaines, 2015), and yet others find a positive impact on turnout (Kaplan & Yuan, 2020). As it relates to the current argument, Herron and Smith (2014) find that Democrat and non-white voters are impacted the most by changes to early voting policies, showing the incentive for a strategic party to expand or constrict access to early voting.

While longer registration deadlines equate to suppressed turnout, there is additional evidence that eliminating the delayed registration/voting process altogether further increases participation. Same day or Election-day registration (SDR/EDR) has been shown to significantly increase turnout to a higher and more consistent degree than other potential interventions.

Registration laws have been a longstanding strategy to limit access to the ballot. The established evidence on registration deadlines is clear; the longer the gap between registration deadlines and election day, the larger negative impact on participation (Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). This negative impact relates to the corresponding costs of the registration process, another well-established literature (Riker & Ordeshook, 1968; Lloyd, 2001; McDonald, 2008). While longer registration deadlines equate to suppressed turnout, there is additional evidence that eliminating the delayed registration/voting process altogether further increases participation. Same day or Election-day registration (SDR/EDR) has been shown to significantly increase turnout to a higher and more consistent degree than other potential interventions (Burden et al, 2014). Other studies also find a strong, positive impact on overall turnout (Rigby & Springer, 2011; Neilheisel & Burden, 2012). More recent work has found that there is an independent age effect, with SDR/EDR increasing youth turnout (Grumbach & Hill, 2022). This again gives credence to the strategic incentive for parties to enact or thwart such policy suggestions.

Having laid out a brief justification for the importance of these electoral policies on outcomes, we can now link this evidence with the tactical motivation of parties in government. The next section offers specific attention to how parties in government look towards the electoral fortunes of the future when creating policy.

THE STRATEGIC NATURE OF PARTIES

There is a rich history of scholarly interest in the influence of parties within legislative bodies. Within the US context, two leading theories had been Conditional Party Government (Rhode, 2013; Aldrich, 1995; Rhode, 1991) and Cartel Party Theory (Cox & McCubbins, 2005; 1993). In Conditional Party Government, the distribution of preferences across party members is key to understanding the fluctuations in party influence. Given preferences of individual legislators are tied to electoral concerns, when preferences are homogenous, party members are more likely to delegate to leadership to deliver legislative victories. When heterogeneous, individual members are averse to delegating to leadership in order to avoid compromising votes that may electorally hurt them.

Conversely, Cartel Party Theory attempts to highlight the overarching command majority party leadership has on a given legislative chamber. They control the agenda via procedural and structural rules, attempting to use their power to maximise the standing of the party by avoiding any controversial votes that could divide party members.

Taking the logic from both of these theories, Strategic Party Government (Koger & Lebo, 2017, 2012; Lebo, McGlynn & Koger, 2007) attempts to explain the variation in party influence between the interaction of the costs and electoral benefits of legislative action. Parties want to maximise their seat-share but are aware of high partisanship and legislative losses come with costs. Therefore, they strive to find the optimal balance between the costs that accompany high party unity for some individual members and the benefits gained by accruing legislative wins, thereby increasing the reputation of the party and gaining seats in subsequent elections. Parties are also strategic and can update and correct their voting patterns from period to period (Lebo, McGlynn & Kober, 2007: 468).

Between Peaceful Coexistence and Realism

Understanding India’s Dilemma and Nuanced Position on Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

Rekha Datta

‘As far as right goes... one has as much of it as the other, and that if any maintain their independence, it is because they are strong, and that if we do not molest them, it is because we are afraid.. . ’

— Thucydides¹

ABSTRACT

Historically, India has adhered to a tradition of peaceful coexistence, which evolved into a policy of nonalignment during the Cold War. Starting with the territorial issues surrounding transfer of power by the princely states, governance concerns in Kashmir, and solidarity with East Pakistan in the 1971 War which led to the independence of Bangladesh, as a state, India has had to pivot at several turning points based on its commitment to peace, stability, and security leading to principles such as the Panchsheela and a policy of nonalignment during the Cold War. In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and violated the latter’s territorial sovereignty, India abstained from voting in favour of UN resolutions condemning the Russian attack. Through this abstention, was India veering from its long-standing reverence for sovereignty and self-determination and turning a blind eye to naked aggression? How will India resolve its dilemma of upholding its larger commitment to peaceful coexistence and strategic commitment to realpolitik and sovereignty? This article contextualises this question first by undertaking a theoretical overview of the state as an actor in pursuit of the principles of peace and stability. As a state, India’s unique foreign policy stance and definition of peace, including its response to the Ukraine attack, are rooted in its historical experiences as an independent nation-state and the continued threats from contemporary reiterations that remind the country of its the birth pangs and quest for identity and aspiration as a credible power.

KEYWORDS

Peaceful coexistence, realism, neutrality, nonalignment, security, India, Russia

INTRODUCTION

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has unfurled age old questions of the raison d’etre of states and unleashed a number of critical issues including threats to peace, humanitarian concerns, economic hardships, balance of power in the post-Cold War world, and security among nations in Europe and globally. As the war in Ukraine enters into its 100th day, about one-fifth of the country, mostly in the eastern region Donetsk and Luhansk, now seems to be under Russian occupation, despite tremendous resilience by the Ukrainians in attempting to contain the progress of Russian forces.² One of the stated purposes behind the Russian offensive put forward by Vladimir Putin was to demilitarise and ‘de-Nazify’ Ukraine, followed by its goal of preventing Ukraine from joining NATO. Back in 2014, noted Realist scholar in the field of International Relations, John Mearsheimer had cautioned that the West’s desire and push to expand NATO and include Ukraine had driven Moscow towards annexing Crimea.³ Presumably, Russia’s 2022 Ukraine invasion could constitute an extension of this design and fits the narrative and rationale of realpolitik to demonstrate state power, security, and sovereignty, and challenge Western alliance-building that seeks to tilt the European power balance in their favour.

Russia’s 2022 Ukraine invasion could constitute an extension of this design and fits the narrative and rationale of realpolitik to demonstrate state power, security, and sovereignty, and challenge western alliance-building that seeks to tilt the European power balance in their favour.

This invasion arguably may have been instigated by Russia’s need to assert its position, exert its influence, and safeguard its security from the Western alliance led by the United States, while Ukraine is pushed to defend and protect its territorial sovereignty. Alongside, whatever outcome it brings, the aggression has the potential to be the harbinger for a new dynamic in the global power balance that has tenuously managed peace and stability in the post-Cold War era. There seems to be a clear consensus that has emerged globally that largely condemns Russia for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbour. China and India are among the few countries that have so far been reluctant to condemn Russia for the invasion. Soon after the invasion, the UN Security Council failed to adopt a resolution that sought to end the onslaught against Ukraine. Russia used its veto to end the progress of the resolution. China, India, and the UAE abstained.⁴ India’s vote has generated much dismay and chagrin among many in policy and scholarly circles.

This article examines the question of why India has refrained from condemning Russia for the attack, and whether in doing so, it has compromised its commitment to traditional notions of peaceful coexistence and nonalignment. The article begins with an exploration of the overall dimensions of state power and Realism, the pursuit of security, and role of the state in maintaining peace and stability with external partners as well as their internal constituencies in a post-colonial, post-conflict state such as India. The exploration will begin with contextualising the dynamics of power and security vis-à-vis the state, and how it seeks to strengthen peace through internal and external security. Even though India has complex domestic challenges in managing the aspirations of a pluralistic society,⁵ the focus of this article primarily is on peaceful coexistence in terms of external relations. Studies have adopted various perspectives to analyse India’s foreign policy, but they seem to gravitate towards realpolitik and a balancing of power and security interests.⁶ This analysis will adopt a similar perspective and begin by examining how India as a post-colonial state framed its policies to address its security priorities, especially with its neighbours, notably with Pakistan and China. The historical antecedents leading up to the foundations of India’s principled commitment to peaceful coexistence and pragmatic need for security will help us contextualise how India began to lean towards peaceful coexistence and nonalignment. This will aid in our understanding and analysis of nuances of and possible repercussions to India’s current position with regard to the war in Ukraine, and why it has chosen to refrain from condemning Russia for the attack. Thus, the premise of this paper is that India’s position in Ukraine, and its overall definition of peace and stability are best understood in the context of the country’s historical experiences in its 75-year history as an independent nation-state.

STATE POWER, REALISM, AND PACIFISM

As already indicated, even though at its core, the aim of this article is to understand India’s position in Russia’s aggression on Ukraine, a broader contextualisation of the role of power, the state, and warfare is critical to that understanding. Fundamentally, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a demonstration of power, control, and influence. In this case, one way to look at the invasion is embedded in Putin’s desire to exercise control over Ukraine and his first step is to ensure compliance by the latter. This use of force obviously unsettles the hitherto existing post-Cold War peaceful balance and unleashes a new tussle for power, a relation that will impact bilateral, regional, as well as the larger context of global peace and stability, and power dynamics, including actors such as China and India. Even though state-building and peacebuilding processes are more appropriate in the cases of transition from a post-conflict environment to a relative peaceful resolution, both work on a fine balance between state, power, and peace. Some of the core issues in this process persist until the power balance is challenged by a subsequent threat to peace, as is the case in Ukraine. How other actors perceive and support or oppose such aggression becomes critical to the geostrategic balance of power, and to the commitment to peace and pacifism that guides the foreign policies of powers that are affected by the crisis. Therefore, even though India is not a direct combatant in this conflict, its stand on the aggression is critical from many angles, including the impact on its own foreign policy philosophy and strategy, its relations with the United States (US), Russia, China, and more. And, India’s position is very much rooted in its own historical experiences that have led the country to adopt its unique perspective on peace and peaceful balance and stability in the region and more broadly.

NOTES & REFERENCES

1 Thucydides, The History of the Pelopponesian War, New York: Random House, 1954, p.332

2 The BBC Visual Journalism Team Report, ‘Ukraine War in Maps: Tracking the Russian War in Ukraine’, 2 June 2022, retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682 on 3 June 2022

3 Mearsheimer, John, ‘Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin’, Foreign Affairs, September-October 2014, pp.77-84, 85-89

4 Meeting coverage, ‘Security Council Fails to Adopt Draft Resolution on Ending Ukraine Crisis, as Russian Federation Wields Veto’, 8979th Meeting (PM), SC/14808, 25 February 2022, retrieved from https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/sc14808.doc.htm on 31 May 2022; hereinafter UNSC Vote on Russia’s Ukraine Invasion, February 2022

5 See for example, Ganguly, Sumit & Mukherji, Rahul, India Since 1980, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011; Chatteji, Rakhahari (ed.), Politics in India: The State Society Interface, Kolkata: Levant Books, 2014, and Datta, R, Contemporary India, London & New York: Routledge, 2018

6 Pant, Harsh V, New Directions in India’s Foreign Policy: Theory and Praxis, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019

Kaleidoscope

Thousands join annual Peace March to commemorate the 1995 Srebrenica victims

More than 4,000 people walked the 100-kilometre route of the annual three-day Peace March to Srebrenica as part of commemorations to mark the 27th anniversary of the 1995 genocide of Bosniaks by Bosnian Serb forces. During the three-day journey from Nezuk to Potocari, participants get a chance to meet survivors of the 1995 genocide and they get to see places where people were held captive; where short history classes are held, and they get to hear stories of those who survived the 1995 ‘death march’.

The remains of 50 genocide victims had been laid to rest at a collective funeral at the Srebrenica Memorial Centre. So far, the remains of 6,671 people have been buried at the Srebrenica Potocari Centre. This year’s burials have taken the number to 6,721.

According to the Missing Persons Institute, the remains of around 1,200 more Srebrenica victims have yet to be found.

Read more at:

https://balkaninsight.com/2022/07/08/thousands-to-join-peace-march-to-commemorate-srebrenica-victims/

Global Peace Index 2022

With the launch of the 16th edition of the Global Peace Index (GPI) by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP), we get to know that peacefulness has declined to the lowest level in 15 years, fuelled by post-COVID-19 economic uncertainty and Ukraine conflict.

Some of the key results of the report include the rise in costs which has led to increased food insecurity and political instability, globally, with Africa, South Asia and the Middle East under greatest threat.

The political terror scale, political insecurity, relations with neighbouring country, refugees and internally-displaced-persons (IDPs), reached their worst score since the inception of the GPI. The global economic impact of violence was $16.5 trillion in 2021, equivalent to 10.9% of global GDP, or $2,117 per person.

Read more at:

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-peace-index-2022

Peace in Colombia

In Colombia, after signing the peace accord in 2016 to end 50-year-old armed conflict between the government and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—People’s Army (FARC-EP), the parliamentary elections held in March 2022 were mostly free of violence and saw a notable rise in the number of women candidates and women elected to Congress.

In the peacebuilding process, now reintegration of former members of the Colombian rebel movement remains a subject of serious concern.

Read more at:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1116112

G-20 diplomats’ consensus remains elusive over Russian roulette in Ukraine

Amidst deepening East-West splits driven by China and Russia on one side and the US and Europe on the other, the G-20 summit in Bali remained largely unsuccessful. This comes right in the middle of the assassination of the former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the resignation of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

G-20 plenary sessions dwells upon multiple challenges like coronavirus, climate change, food and energy shortages, terrorism and transnational crimes, war aggressions and hence, the Indonesian foreign minister Retno Marsudi urged the world leaders to overcome the mistrust that the polarised world faces today, in reaction to the Ukraine-Russia crisis.

Read more at:

https://apnews.com/article/nato-russia-ukraine-boris-johnson-g-20-summit-covida7ac635f110548f3ef00b01f02cf5c69

Restorative justice and peacemaking

At Occidental College in Pasadena, California, a student was rebuked for her ethnic hate speech, and the social media outrage eventually led her to dropout.

A small group of students wanted to investigate a few questions revolving justice, truth and reconciliation, with the help of their professor who helped them organise a debate to probe their community’s values around justice and forgiveness.

A concept emerged in the criminal justice system in the 1970s, which requires effort on the wrongdoer’s part in the process of rehabilitation coupled with the reconciliation on the part of the person who has been wronged and thereby, the community at large.

To make peace, we must transcend our prior way of being into something higher. Think of the last time you successfully repaired a relationship: Did you do so with logical compromise, or by bringing forth your real heart?

Read more at:

https://www.deseret.com/2022/5/8/23053672/perspective-are-there-limits-torestorative-justice-occidental-college-racist-tweet-peacemaking

Esperanto––the 135-year-old language of peace

On 26 July 1887, L L Zamenhof, a Jewish doctor from Bialystok, published ‘Unua Libro’ or ‘First Book’ which, for the very first time, introduced people to the language of Esperanto, drawn from English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Latin, Polish, Russian and Yiddish. The word, ‘Esperanto’ means ‘one who hopes’.

This language has been constructed by Zamenhof, to uphold unity in the linguistic diversity, shared by different groups of people, in the then Prussian region, at a time, when Europe was riven by violence, and each member of the community, speaking a different language, viewed the other members with suspicion.

At present, there are two million Esperanto speakers worldwide. In 1954, UNESCO passed a resolution, recognising and entering into a relationship with the Universal Esperanto Association, which paved way for the Esperanto movement to be represented at UNESCO events. More recently, UNESCO declared 2017 as the year of Zamenhof. Since then, The UNESCO Courier, its flagship journal, has had an Esperanto-language edition, published quarterly. It is to be seen if the Universal Esperanto Association, nominated for more than 100 times, gets awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Read more at:

https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-esperanto-the-135-year-old-language-of-peace-hated-by-hitler-and-stalin-alike-186025

First UN Trailblazer Award for Women Justice and Corrections Officers

Téné Maïmouna Zoungrana of Burkina Faso gets the UN Trailblazer Award for Women Justice and Corrections Officers for her demilitarisation efforts in the Central African Republic (CAR) prison system.

Téné created a women-only rapid intervention team and integrated their training into the national procedures of the penitentiary curriculum which has helped in improving the effectiveness and accountability of CAR penitentiary institutions, leading to a significant reduction in the number of escapes at the prison.

Read more at:

https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/burkina-faso-corrections-officer-deployed-to-minuscawins-first-united-nations-trailblazer-award

Sociology Professor earns UC’s Constantine Panunzio Distinguished Emeriti Award

Professor John Brown Childs is awarded for his outstanding contribution in the theory of transcommunality and his Transcommunal Peacemaking Course which brings together University of California, Santa Cruz undergraduates and incarcerated men from the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad to learn collaboratively.

Inspired by Deganawidah, ‘the Peacemaker’, John spent a lifetime working on the minoritised and the marginalised, centring upon ethics and morality.

Read more at:

https://news.ucsc.edu/2022/05/uc-emeriti-award-john-brown-childs.html

Curated by Meghna Chakraborty

Book Reviews

The Vortex: A True Story of History’s Deadliest Storm, an Unspeakable War, and Liberation

By SCOTT CARNEY and JASON MIKLIAN

pp.528, Ecco, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers 2022, HB/eBook $29.99/5.84

Reviewed by

JEREMY A RINKER

As my father lay dying and my mom was starting to spiral into dementia, the running joke between me and my brother every time we talked about our trips to the family home where they convalesced was that we had stepped into/out of the vortex. At that time in our lives, we needed levity and the thought of our parents’ living in a vortex made us laugh uneasily. Like the eye of a hurricane, entering our beloved family home gave us a feeling of being sucked into a spiralling disassociation, an eerie sense of timelessness, and, at times, an uneasy sense of calm amidst chaos.

This is the feeling one gets when reading The Vortex: A True Story of History’s Deadliest Storm, an Unspeakable War, and Liberation by Scott Carney and Jason Miklian. Undoubtedly comparable to the experience of one physically trapped by either a natural or manmade disaster, me and my brother’s dissociative feelings were visceral. Scott Carney and Jason Miklian’s impressive work of ‘narrative nonfiction’ (p.xiii), conjures a similar paradoxical feeling: a complex desire to both run away coupled with a simultaneous inability to exit the narrative. The Vortex tells the story of likely the deadliest cyclone (hurricane) to ever make landfall and the violent conflict opened in the social/political destabilisation of its aftermath. This is the story of the confluence of political instability and a perfect storm that birthed the nation of Bangladesh. The 1970 Bhola Cyclone, named for the island in the Bay of Bengal over which it directly passed, was a watershed event that killed an estimated half a million people in what was then East Pakistan. The storm and its aftermath reveal much about our, nearly inevitable, human future of heightened environmental conflict. Carney and Miklian’s excavating of this natural and subsequent manmade disaster present mostly a forgotten and untold history. The authors’ retelling provides both a gripping narrative and a well-researched forecast of the social and political dynamics emboldened by the ‘political opportunity structures’ (Tarrow, 1998) unleased in the aftermath of the human tragedy of natural disaster.

The book is broken into three acts which cover the 1970 cyclone and its aftermath (Act I), operation searchlight - East Pakistani Prime Minister Yahya Khan’s genocidal plan to subvert the democratic election of East Pakistan’s Mujibur (Mujib) Rahman as Pakistan’s next Prime Minister (Act II), and the reckoning that followed the natural and manmade destabilisation during Bangladesh’s War of Independence (Act III).

Each chapter of this three-act drama plays out from the perspective of a host of characters directly and indirectly related to the tragedy of the cyclone, the post-election genocide, and/or the war for liberation that follows. Carney and Miklian weave the stories and lives of important world leaders (Richard Nixon, Yahya Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and Zhou Enlai) together with previously unknown Bangladeshi and ex-patriot Americans (Mohammad Hai, Malik Mahmud, and John and Candy Rodhe, among others) to tell the story of the 1970-1971 painful and violent transformation of East Pakistan to the newly independent country of Bangladesh. Creative and lucid in their prose, Carney and Miklian shine an important light on this pre-internet historical context, which was largely lost to the media blackout engineered by West Pakistan’s leadership. With the help of US President Richard Nixon, Yahya Khan ‘ordered every American working in East Pakistan evacuated to Iran via Karachi’ (p.229) in April 1971 as they were ‘complicating his propaganda efforts’ (p.229) which had already included the violent purging of most Bengali intellectuals and the banishing of all international journalists from the capital of Dacca (Dhaka). This tragic story, which at the time was hidden and misunderstood by those outside of East Pakistan, longed to be told. Even over 50 years later, the collective trauma of this hubristic history remains. As the authors express in the afterword ‘More than half a century later, Bangladesh continues to struggle to escape the shadow of its horrific birth’ (p.404).

Although the authors admit their retelling is ‘condensed’ (p.xiv) and that they presume some ‘emotional responses in places where the participants themselves did not remember’ (p.xiv), such creative licence does little to interrupt the critical truth-telling in the authors’ narrative. In addition to excavating this lost history, the narrative paints important, and at times surprising, pictures of leaders like Nixon, Khan, and Bhutto. The flow of the narrative is riveting, and this type of narrative-based retelling provides an important re-creation of the now-lost historical record of these transformative historical events. In short, the authors of The Vortex do a masterful job of educating an English-language public about an important and forgotten history as well as underscoring the important social and political decision points of those directly affected by environmental disaster and the socio-political conflict it can unleash. Hubris and power form the backdrop to ill-conceived ‘solutions’ to human tragedy, and Carney and Miklian’s creative research process, which included over two hundred interviews and the review of hundreds of archival sources, develops insights about both leaders’ intentions and their personal foibles.

This is a work of both historical scholarship and creative nonfiction that foregrounds the theme of the universality of resilience to natural disaster and war; themes that will be useful as we proceed deeper into the Anthropocene, our contemporary geologic era of now near certain climate emergency. The emotional retelling of this history from the perspective of those who lived through it, though, by definition, incomplete, provides an important bulwark against the nationalistic narratives one often hears from all sides of this history.

Although the work may be too focused on key historical leaders and the book’s chapters are somewhat redundantly named for various combinations of these characters, the brevity of each chapter provides informative vignettes, which bring the reader in close contact with the human tragedy of the context. The authors even creatively introduce subplots in an ‘intermission’ after act one and a ‘musical interlude’ after act two. These provide more context to the relationships between Yahya and Tikka Khan (two central figures in Pakistan’s Operation Searchlight) in the intermission and George Harrison and Ravi Shankar (who organised the first ever international benefit concert for the refugees of both the cyclone and the war of liberation) in the musical interlude.

The book does a niece job of articulating the multifaceted global dynamics of the 1970-71 events in what came close to a cold war nuclear confrontation. It also chronicles the lives of unrecognised peacemakers like Candy and John Rodhe, American ex-patriots doing alternative service to avoid the Vietnam draft and who left an immeasurable imprint on the humanitarian aid and development world with their rapid response to both the Bhola Cyclone and refugees fleeing the war of liberation. Such figures, shaped by their circumstances, were far ahead of their time.

Although written for a popular audience more than for scholars and historians, the book provides a valuable service to both. As witness to violence and genocide it hones a critical spotlight (dare I say, a real operation searchlight) on past leaders in a way that raises important moral and geopolitical questions. As a work of historical scholarship, it opens a set of qualitative questions about resistance to poor decision-making and the complex attributes of those working to forge peace and reconciliation. For those interested in South Asian history, democratic institutions, humanitarian aid, and how to write history, Carney and Miklian’s book is not to be missed. Thick, with short chapters, the book can be read quickly and provides an accessible and effective pedagogy for learning about this impactful period of South Asian history as well as environmental conflict more generally.

It will make readers want to know more about similar unlearned histories. It might even, have an emotional resonance that inspirers, or reinvigorates, modern peacemakers and peacebuilders. Despite the terrifying history and dire prognosticating of disasters to come, the book leaves the reader with a sense of optimism––an optimism that the truth will eventually be told, and that humans can resiliently soldier on in the face of extreme suffering. Reading about such histories makes one realise the important impacts individuals can have on the course of human history.

WORKS CITED

Tarrow, Sidney, Power-In-Movement: Social Movement and Contentious Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998

Healing Resistance: A Radically Different Response to Harm

By KAZU HAGA

pp.255, Parallax Press

2020, PB/e-book

£17.95/12.99

Reviewed by

DEAN J JOHNSON

Healing Resistance continues the legacy of Kingian nonviolence training. Kazu Haga builds on the training he received from Bernard LaFayette, Jr and David C Jehnsen, who created their training frameworks based upon their work with Martin Luther King, Jr. Through his contributions, Haga demonstrates the contemporary usefulness and necessity of King’s philosophical framework and steps for nonviolent social change. Haga writes, ‘Our work is simply to learn from our elders, tend to our portion of the bridge, and pass on the knowledge to the next generation.’ He continues, ‘Our work is to bridge our ancestors with our descendants, meet intergenerational trauma with intergenerational wisdom, and heal the trauma and transform it into the resiliency that will pass onto our children so that they can cross wider and wider divides’ (p.231). Healing Resistance does just that by demonstrating how the knowledge of the past can be used now.

Healing Resistance goes to the heart of Kingian nonviolence which understands that not only does seeking justice change society it also changes those who are seeking justice. Haga’s book is the narrative of his own pilgrimage which sets the stage for how someone can integrate the Kingian ‘Principles of Nonviolence’ and ‘Six Steps to Nonviolent Social Change’ into their life and activist work. As Haga puts it, ‘These six principles of nonviolence are a package. To practice one without practicing all of them would be an incomplete practice’ (p.95). The six principles of nonviolence inform the ways in which the six steps of nonviolence are practised. The steps of nonviolence, according to Haga’s Kingian nonviolence, ‘are a framework through which we view various of organizing a campaign or a movement’ (p.166).

Haga is a storyteller. In the first part of the book, the reader is quickly engaged in his struggle to find meaning in his life. He shares his own frustrations with the injustices of the world and his search for a spiritual centre. In his storytelling, Haga does something that is often overlooked in books about nonviolent social change: he demonstrates how nonviolence is a spiritual way of life. Many books engage in nonviolent social change as strategic, rooted in the logistics of power and systems analysis, and are removed from any kind of spirituality. This is not the case for Kingian nonviolence which works towards creating the ‘Beloved Community’. For Haga such a community ‘is committed to personal transformation as well as social and structural change. A community that understands we need to work on healing our traumas and transform our relationships’ (p.xxiii). Healing Resistance places the spiritual journey in the centre. Haga understands that Kingian nonviolence is principled and is a worldview. He writes, ‘Nonviolence is a worldview that speaks to the impact of violence, harm, and oppression, and injustice on the human condition. It is about the dynamics of conflict and how to transform it. It is about an unwaivering faith in the goodness in people and an undying commitment to healing ourselves and society’ (p.xxi). Haga communicates about the spiritual and principled attributes of Kingian nonviolence with humility and without being dogmatic, freely sharing his own struggles. For example, in Chapter One Haga writes that at 17 he was struggling with direction in his life. It was a time that he could have easily found himself enlisting in the military or getting involved with a gang (p.7). It is at this time that he decides to become part of the Interfaith Pilgrimage of the Middle Passage, a walk to engage and heal the racist legacy of slavery in the United States. While Haga only planned on walking for a week, he stayed for the entire journey. As the walk ends, he begins to become anxious about what is next. He writes, ‘I went outside of the small church we were staying at in rural Mississippi and chain-smoked more cigarettes than I had ever smoked in my life’ (p.11). It is in this kind of sharing and vulnerability that Haga’s writing reveals that we are all on a journey. He expresses his gratefulness for all those who have influenced his journey and joins those connections with his spiritual and activist calling.

The second two-thirds of the book take the reader through the ‘Six Principles of Nonviolence’ and the ‘Six Steps of Nonviolence’. Throughout this portion of the book, Haga explains each principle and step, and tells stories about how each works. Haga’s training and expertise clearly come through as he lays the foundation and importance of the ‘Six Principles’, followed by the ‘Six Steps’. Establishing the Six Principles first is important to the practice of Kingian nonviolence because without understanding the philosophical and religious framework, in other words the principles, following the steps becomes difficult.

The end of the book provides some practical guidance to introduce nonviolent practices into one’s life. Haga knows that for many people nonviolence seems unrealistic and unachievable. In ‘Nonviolent Weights’, Haga approaches the practice of nonviolence like exercise and building up one’s nonviolence muscles. He also provides answers at the end of the book to some of the biggest critiques of and questions posed to nonviolence. For example, one critique of nonviolence is that, ‘[it] doesn’t work against people who have no morals.’ Haga responds, ‘This might be true. Nonviolence is based on an unwavering faith that the core of humanity is about belonging. Even if people have forgotten their own morals, nonviolence is about reminding them of it’ (p.244). In taking on these questions, Haga provides tools for those just learning about and/or who are critical of nonviolence.

There is very little to criticise about Healing Resistance. Haga has created a contemporary Kingian nonviolence framework. Haga is working with the framework and teachings of King, not just retelling the stories of the past. If you are looking for a history of Martin Luther King, Jr, the Southern Christian Leadership Congress, and nonviolent social change, this is not the book for you. Likewise, if you are seeking a ‘how-to’ manual for Kingian nonviolence, you might be disappointed in the amount of personal storytelling and the lack of step-by-step tactical instruction. While Haga does talk about strategy and tactics, his focus is on relationships and self- and communal-empowerment. This is a return to the Kingian understanding that the power resides in the people. He is reminding us how revolutionary the beloved community and nonviolence are in the face of intentional polarisation and increased violence.

Haga has a clear writing style that is easy to read and understand. It is accessible to both folk and academic audiences alike. The book should be read by anyone eager to see social change. It will be a useful resource for religious and spiritual groups and academic classes in Peace and Justice Studies, History, Philosophy, and Religious Studies.

Kazu Haga is an activist, organiser, Kingian nonviolence trainer and transformative change agent. He is the founder of the East Point Peace Academy and a member of the Ahimsa Collective.

Journal of Transdisciplinary Peace Praxis

https://jtpp.uk

In association with

Peace and Justice Studies Association

https://www.peacejusticestudies.org