The Power of Passive Resistance

Passive resistance may very well be more effective than terrorism

Looking back over the history of modern terrorism, one of the most notable aspects is that is almost always fails to achieve its objectives.¹ In fact, terrorism used by itself has only ever been effective in a strict anti-colonial context. In colonies throughout the world, terrorism was sometimes capable of raising the costs of occupation enough to reduce the benefits to the point where the colonial power decided staying wasn't worth it. Other groups have sought to emulate these successes in other contexts and have failed miserably. Examples include the IRA, RAF, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and just about any other group you can think of.

None of these groups are anti-colonial. The IRA viewed Northern Ireland in a colonial context, but it was wrong: The majority of the Northern Irish viewed themselves as British and wished to remain part of the United Kingdom. This was a case of majority rule. Colonies consist of a minority ruling over a majority from far away. The Northern Irish were represented in the UK Parliament and the majority of the population wished things to stay that way. The IRA failed in the end because it failed to understand that Northern Ireland was not a British colony.


Palestinian terror groups have made the same mistake. Israel is not a colony; it is a nation-state ruled by the state's citizen residents. Demanding Palestinian control of Israel is demanding that Israelis agree to destroy their own state. That's something they will never agree to, and that should be obvious to anyone.


But what about the Occupied Territories? These do resemble colonies: They're controlled from afar and the majority of those in the territories is not represented and does not agree with the occupation. Some Palestinian groups have been using terrorism for decades to try to end the occupation, but they haven't really been successful. Why?


Two reasons. One: their goals have been total, including the destruction of Israel. This has made it difficult for any Israeli government to negotiate with them because the very existence of these groups is seen as a threat to the survival of Israel itself. Two: they are using terrorism, which is violent and robs them of support and sympathy in many people's eyes.


One could argue that Hamas has actually achieved success in Gaza: The occupation there has ended and Hamas controls the Strip. Imagine if the groups used only passive resistance, however. Passive resistance is also only likely to work in an anti-colonial context, but that means it would be appropriate to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Terror groups suffer two problems stemming from their use of terror: They scare people enough to cause voters and governments to desire to wipe them out rather than negotiate, and they lack legitimacy. Civil disobedience would, like terrorism, make continued occupation of the territories more difficult, raising its cost. Refraining from violence, however, would also remove one of the benefits of the occupation: security. One reason for the continued occupation at the moment is that every time Israel pulls out (as with autonomy agreements implemented during the '90s or the withdrawal from Gaza), violence against Israelis increases. If this were not an issue, one significant incentive for the occupation would be removed. Finally, with passive resistance, no one would question the morals or objectives of Palestinians peacefully protesting and practicing civil disobedience. The actions would attain a level of legitimacy and sympathy that terrorist actions cannot.


I haven't done the necessary work on passive resistance to make solid claims about its comparative effectiveness, but I bet that the Palestinians would have their own state by now if they had opted for civil disobedience instead of terrorism. Terrorism is not the "only option," chosen out of desperation, as many groups pretend. There are others, and they may be more effective. There is one nagging problem, however: Passive resistance more obviously stands no chance of turning Israel into Palestine and would require all groups, even extreme ones, to give up that goal. So we're back where we started, because that is a core issue. Still, food for thought.


1. For an excellent book on this, see: Peter R. Neumann, and M.L.R. Smith, The Strategy of Terrorism: How It Works, and Why It Fails, Contemporary Terrorism Studies, London: Routledge, 2008.

Why Should Polygamy Be Illegal?

Anti-gay rights activists often ground their argument against gay marriage using the "slippery slope" analogy: If we allow this, soon we'll have to allow polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. This, of course, is silly (and gravely insulting). We don't "have" to do anything. Slippery slopes do exist, so the analogy is not always a red herring, but in this case it's a bit like arguing that we shouldn't allow women to vote because soon children, prison inmates, and farm animals will want the vote as well. Besides, the fundamental line of separation here is mercifully clear and uncontroversial: it's consent--at least for most of the cases. Children are not capable of consenting to sexual acts they (and their bodies) do not understand. Sex with children will thus always be unacceptable and a crime (all arguments about the age at which a person is mature enough to consent aside). Animals have no way of expressing consent and, at the risk of stating the obvious, there is little reason to think they would give it if they could! That leaves polygamy.

Polygamy (which includes polygyny and polyandry) is not socially acceptable in most places in "Western" countries. Even the Mormons no longer allow it. If we follow the consent principle, though, it is hard to find solid arguments for outlawing it. Let me make one thing clear right here: no good arguments for disallowing something does not equal good arguments for engaging in something. I'm not promoting polygamy (or even polyamory) here. What I am promoting is people's choice to be polygamous if they and their partners wish. It's about freedom and consent.

"Polygyny is degrading to women." I'll admit on an emotional level it sure seems odd to share one man among several women. In the end, though, this comes down to claiming to know what's good for others better than they know it themselves. This is always tricky. We do accept such paternalism as the norm in some cases, however. Seatbelt laws are just one example. The reason we have them is because they save lives because we are all apparently too shortsighted to save our lives without laws mandating that we do so! So do people always make the best choices for themselves? Obviously not. But the harm in polygamy is not clear, or at least not clear enough to make it criminal. It seems to me your family and friends (if anyone) should be the ones telling you not to do it, not the state. Besides, we're talking about polygamy as a whole here. Is polyandry degrading to men? Are men considered equally incapable of judging what is good for them? If not, then the whole argument about banning polygamy because it is degrading to women centers on women being incapable of thinking for themselves. Who's degrading women now?

This reminds me a bit (tangentially) of calls to ban Islamic face coverings and head scarves. Some also consider these to be degrading to women. Once again, though: How do we pick out those who are pressured into wearing them by their husbands and fathers and those who choose to do so out of a personal sense of piety? (I have known some women in the latter group.) This topic is less controversial in the US, with its strict tradition of freedom of religion and religious expression, than in Europe. But as one woman in an English class I taught in Austria pointed out (she was the only one in the class against banning face coverings): "Prohibiting women from covering their faces is just as bad as forcing them to cover them. No matter what, they are not free to choose."

So bans on polygamy are based in religious tradition and paternalism and are thus overly restrictive of individual freedoms in my book (you all know I'm a social--but not economic--libertarian). Thoughts?

Taiwan's Fate Is Sealed

Taiwan will become a de facto (and not just de jure) part of China--the only question is how

Taiwan's chances of becoming a fully independent state are essentially nill. The island is currently only recognized by a very few countries as an independent state. For most of the world, then, Taiwan is already a de jure (by law) part of China. Taiwan is de facto sovereign, however, deciding over all its own affairs. The United States has taken it upon itself to protect this state of affairs. In a series of communiques during the 1970s, the United States agreed that there was only one China and that Taiwan was part of China. The catch for China is that both it and the US agreed that neither Taiwan nor China was to decide on a change in the status quo between Taiwan and China unilaterally or by force. This means that the US cannot support Taiwanese de jure independence, but that China would theoretically be barred from "reunifying" Taiwan with the mainland by force. As long as everyone sticks to the bargain, things are OK, even if they are quite messy from an international relations or international law viewpoint.

The thing is, China expects unification with Taiwan to occur eventually and does not seem willing to wait forever for this to happen: "In 2005 China passed the Taiwan Anti-Secession Law, which commits it to a military response should Taiwan ever declare independence or even if the government in Beijing thinks all possibility of peaceful unification has been lost" (The Economist, Apr 7 2012). This seems to be rather close to violating those communiques, since the latter part, at least, would be a unilateral Chinese move toward unification. On the other hand, the US was supposed to slowly reduce its arms sales to Taiwan over time--it has not. As is distressingly often the case in international politics, a tiny political entity has the power to set a frightening chain of events into motion.

What if Taiwan were to declare independence? This came close to happening under Taiwan's President Chen in 2002, when he declared that there was "one country on either side of the Taiwan Strait."¹ Disaster was averted, however, when US President Bush began to reign Chen in, making it clear that the US's stance on unilateral changes to Taiwan's status applied to Taiwan as well as China.

The people of Taiwan eventually voted Chen out, partly out of fear that his loose talk could prompt a Chinese attack. Fear that China would attack and clear signals from Washington that the US would not back Taiwan if it declared independence should be enough to prevent it from doing so. (At least, I hope those signals from Washington are clear!)

But what happens if China decides that "all possibility of peaceful unification has been lost" and decides to forcefully annex Taiwan? At the moment, this still seems unlikely due to the US's power in the region. But China is increasing its capabilities in its backyard quite quickly. It's not a case of China needing to achieve military parity with the US. It's only a case of being able to defend itself against a US attack on its immediate coastal area including Taiwan. That is considerably easier than achieving parity. Would the US really be able, or willing, to stand up against China for the sake of Taiwan?

The US policy on the topic is "strategic ambiguity," which basically means it says it could get pissed off about a number of things, it just won't tell anyone what things would lead to which responses. The advantage of this is flexibility and the belief that this uncertainty will make the Chinese wary of provoking the US. What it actually is, in my view, is a way for the US to prevent admitting that it could not stop China from taking Taiwan if the former really wanted to, especially if China decides to do this in, say, 10 years or so when its capabilities will have grown much greater. The US is a long way from Taiwan, but China's entire military force could easily and quickly be brought to bear on the island. Over the medium to long term, there is little the US could do to stop such an occurrence. "Strategic ambiguity" is a sponginess that allows the US to convince all parties that they will get what they want and deserve, while knowing full well that this is impossible.

1.Dumbaugh, Kerry. “CRS Report for Congress.” Federation of American Scientists. 20 April 2007. 14 Jun. 2008 <http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33684.pdf> cited in Kirchofer, Charles. “U.S. Foreign Policy and Interests Reharding Tensions in the Taiwan Strait”. Webster University, Vienna, July 10, 2008. http://www.english4you.biz/papers/taiwan.pdf.