Anti-War Protests, Pacificism, and Syria

I've avoided discussion on Syria since there are a million other outlets pontificating on this issue already. However, two articles appeared on my radar, both in reaction to the recent surge in activity from anti-war groups so I'll comment on anti-war protests. Liberal anti-war groups largely supported Obama'd bid for election in 2008. However, Syria provides the first major break between the administration and demonstraters. It's no suprise that activists, who we often assume are principled actors, can too play politics, forming coalitions with lawmakers, disparate groups, and whoever will help them push their short term agenda. Who would have thought conservative libertarians and left-wing pacificists jumping in bed! But this also shows that coalitions are fluid, and their relationship with formal political parties are complex as argued by Michael Heaney and Fabio Rojas here. More related to my own (not-yet-off-the-ground) research is a confirmation about the worldviews and constraints of policymakers and activists. They are socialized into two completely different worldviews such that no permanent coalition could be ever formed in finding a solution to peace.

Source: Nikki Kahn/Washington Post

The second article is an op-ed from documentary filmaker Sebastian Junger titled " When the best chance for peace means war." It's essentially a rebuke of pacifism in the wake of humanitarian disaster as Junger writes, "At some point, pacifism becomes part of the machinery of death." Evoking just means for the use of force, he adds, "Every war I have ever covered — Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Liberia — withstood all diplomatic efforts to end it until Western military action finally forced a resolution." This last point is the tough question for pacfisits. The pacifist reponse is to always look for diplomatic solutions, even when such solutions have been exhausted. At times coercion, or the threat of coercion, are needed to bring about a diplomatic breakthrough.

Peace Activists, Realism, and the Asian Pivot

Peace activists concerned about Washington’s strategic re-balance towards Asia organized the Working Group for Peace & Demilitarization in Asia and the Pacific. I hadn’t received their e-newsletter in a while but I received one today. Their opinions tend to veer to the left, but they do a great job (and service) presenting news and updates. For instance, I learned about the upcoming meeting between Washington and Tokyo next week where the two sides will discuss revisions to the defense cooperation guidelines. The last review was in 1997. Both sides will likely strengthen relations which have flat-lined a bit under the DPJ. Two issues to watch are cooperation in the areas of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and the possibility of Japan expanding the role of its Self-Defense Forces (SDF), a move more plausible under the newly elected LDP.

The newsletter also alerted the group to the impending “boom” in arms sales to Asia as a result of the strategic re-balance. I was aware that the U.S. had approved sales of the Global Hawk to South Korea (the post didn't mention though that the Koreans intended to play hard-ball). But other allies also have their wish lists: Japan selected the F-35 to replace its fleet of F-4s; Singapore and South Korea are also eyeing this plane; Taiwan is upgrading its existing fleet of F-16A/B fighters.

I'm interested in how these news and facts are interpreted. Activists are informing their network about the impending danger and perils heading towards Asia as the region further militarizes. Many policymakers probably take these facts as a positive sign that Washington is playing an active role in supporting our allies and keeping the peace in the region. Who is right in this debate? It's a bit ironic that both sides resort to realist arguments to stake their claim. It's the security dilemma for peace activists and the balance of power for policymakers.