Is legal recognition a pacifist victory?
Legal recognition for conscientious objection was a focus of debate in the International for a long period. This is the full text of ‘Is Legal Recognition a Pacifist Victory?’ by Arno Hamers, published in The War Resister 78, first quarter, 1958,p.10–12, together with the introduction by Arlo Tatum.
The W.R.I. works for legal recognition of conscientious objection where none exists on behalf of the many members who have no scruples against compulsory alternative service. It has, however, never commended or committed itself to any form of conscription, civilian or military. This effort to serve both those members who accept civilian alternative service and those who withhold co-operation is severely criticised in the following paragraphs from Mr. Hamers’ letter of resignation. It was sent to the Committee of the Belgian Section of the War Resisters’ International, and has been translated into English by Jack Goundry. Your comments are welcome.
The Editor
[Arlo Tatum]
Dear Friends,
I have safely to hand your invitation to the meeting of 19th October, 1957, organised by the S.C.I., the M.I.R. and the W.R.I.
In it, it says: “For years the members of our movements have conducted a ceaseless public campaign for the liberation of conscientious objectors and to obtain legal recognition (especially alternative civilian service) guaranteeing respect of their convictions”. And further on: “This Government bill constitutes a valid response to our claim, but it it is important, however, that we discuss together certain amendments to be made to it”.
I would remind you that since I have worked within the W.R.I. I have always fought to ensure that
the demand for the liberation of conscientious objectors be put forward as a consequence of what, in my opinion, is the first of our claims, namely: the abolition of compulsory military service. In addition, I have always been opposed to the presenting of the claim for legal recognition of conscientious objectors as a claim made by the W.R.I. as an organisation, since the W.R.I. embraces both supporters and opponents of acceptance of compulsory alternative civilian service.
However, your invitation – signed on behalf of the W.R.I. – gives the impression that the W.R.I. as an organisation, accepts compulsory alternative civilian service, and that it considers that the government bill, save for a few amendments, “constitutes a valid response to our claims”. This is inadmissible.
With due regard to the truth, the Committee of the Belgian Section of the W.R.I. should at least ensure that the circulars it issues, concerning the legal recognition of objectors, mention that the Belgian Section counts among its members supporters of alternative service, and also others who, on principle, refuse all such form of service.
Concerning the meeting on the 19th, I would also point out that, had the W.R.I. remained faithful to its original principles, such a meeting – at which it is proposed to discuss amendments to a government bill for compulsory alternative civilian service for conscientious objectors – would actually be inconceivable.
Indeed, as recalled by Hem Day in his report presented at the one day school of 22nd June, 1952 (see “Documents de l’I.R.G.” No. 2), the WRI in the beginning only admitted as members those who also refused any form of compulsory alternative civilian service, and it was only later, owing to an error, not then considered worthy of correction, that supporters of acceptance of this form of service were admitted to the organisation.
In the face of the present world situation and the tasks it imposes upon war resisters, it is more clearly apparent than in the past that the founders of the W.R.I. took the right view in laying down such rigorous conditions for admission to the organisation.
It is not for us, of course, to judge those who, in circumstances different from our own, have accepted modifications to the original principles of the W.R.I.. But, it is nonetheless evident that it was an error, which is being paid for by considerable confusion within the organisation and by a weakening and diverting of its activity at the very moment when a correct and clear line of action is most necessary.
It is, indeed, extremely grave for the idea of war resistance, that, in the eyes of public opinion – and even to many members and supporters of the W.R.I. – the problem of conscientious objection is reduced, in practice, to the securing of a form of legal recognition aiming at “resolving” the cases of a few Belgian objectors and of those in other countries where compulsory military service obtains, but without recognition.
In no circumstances can it be permitted to sanction such a view, for that is not, in fact, the essential problem.
It should be clear to any war resister that the H-bomb is, in reality, the symbol of absolute evil. Therefore, any idea of compromise with the military system of blocs of States, which claim to base the security of their peoples upon the threat of using thermo-nuclear weapons, must be absolutely rejected. In addition, at the moment when the atomic threat hangs over humanity, discussion of the amendments to be made to a government bill for legal recognition seems to me, at the very least, completely divorced from the realities and needs of the hour.
In the present circumstances I think that the only line of action of consequence to war resisters, in the countries belonging to the two opposing military blocs, is progressive and ever-increasing non-cooperation with the State in the sense outlined by Gandhi and ever increasing offensive civil disobedience, even going as far as total civil disobedience, if the demands of the world situation require it.
Such a line of action is evidently quite incompatible with the acceptance of a form of compulsory alternative service of whatever kind, since it is, on the contrary, a question of purely and simply ignoring the authority of the State in all legal measures relating to conscription, and of possibly violating – in the final phase of action – all the laws of the State which one can infringe without moral degradation.
Since giving my support to the Belgian Section of the W.R.I. I have never actually felt at ease in it, since, the further I pursued the study of non-violence, the more clearly it seemed to me that the activity of the Belgian Section as much in spirit as in method, was, in general, hard to reconcile with nonviolence in the true sense of the term. It was, moreover, disagreements on this point, which led me on 22nd October, 1956 to resign my position as secretary of the Liege Group of the W.R.I. which I had held since June of the same year, and then to suspend my practical participation in the activities of the W.R.I.
I think, in fact, that only action carried out strictly in the spirit of truth and nonviolence (which excludes, among other things, the use of secret methods) can effectively contribute to the advancement of the cause of peace.
I am persuaded that all members of the Belgian Section – including those who are quite opposed to the concepts I have just expounded – are as sincerely attached to the cause of peace as I believe myself to be. However, experience shows that fruitful co-operation is only possible if there is a minimum of concepts in common and if, in addition, there are no fundamental incompatibilities.
The only constructive solution is therefore to define clearly the respective ideals and to work independently the one from the other, until, with time, practical experience may lead to an adequate reconciliation of the points of view. Consequently, I have decided to send you to-day my resignation as a member of the Belgian Section of the W.R.I.
Until I meet you again in the course of our activities for peace I offer you, dear friend, my fraternal greetings.
Arno Hamers
Add new comment