Tag Archives: East Timor

Book review: The Hammer Blow. How ten women disarmed a warplane by Andrea Needham

Book review: The Hammer Blow. How ten women disarmed a warplane by Andrea Needham
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
11 April 2016

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” The Hammer Blow is the perfect illustration of anthropologist Margaret Mead’s famous quote.

The book tells the extraordinary story of how, in January 1996, ten women activists, including author Andrea Needham, worked to disarm a British Aerospace Hawk jet which was about to be sent to Indonesia.

Led by the murderous dictator Suharto, in 1975 Indonesia invaded the former Portuguese colony of East Timor and proceeded to carry out what US dissident Noam Chomsky described as “one of the greatest bloodlettings in modern history compared to total population”. Approximately 200,000 people – about a third of the total population – are reported to have died by the mid-1990s, with the Indonesian forces using the British-made Hawk jets to subdue the East Timorese.

Appalled by the UK government aiding and abetting Indonesia’s genocidal actions, and having unsuccessfully lobbied British Aerospace and the government, the ten women formed an affinity group to explore how they could stop the slaughter using direct action. The preparation for what is now known as the Seeds of Hope East Timor Ploughshares Action took ten long months. Needham explains the group bonded over a number of weekends including lengthy “life-sharing” sessions and “spent a lot of time discussing philosophical questions: militarism, patriarchy, co-operation with authority, secrecy and openness, when is it right to break the law”.

Like the rest of the book, Needham’s account of sneaking into the British Aerospace factory at Warton and disarming the Hawk – that is hammering and smashing parts of the aircraft – is absolutely riveting. Eventually discovered by security, the three women who carried out the action – Needham, Jo Blackman and Lotta Kronlid –along with Angie Zelter, were arrested.

Reasoning they acted to prevent a larger crime, their subsequent trial in Liverpool is a fascinating and uplifting example of passionately principled people presenting their case to the conservative British legal system. “I’m not breaking the law, I’m upholding it”, Kronlid told the prosecutor. After six months on remand in prison and a huge support campaign publicising their actions the four women were acquitted by the jury on 30 July 1996 to jubilant scenes outside the court.

“In twenty years of resistance we were never able to shoot down an aircraft”, Jose Ramon Horta, the future President of East Timor, noted in a letter to the women in prison. “You did it without even firing a single shot and without hurting the pilot”.

Frustratingly, after it was elected in 1997 Tony Blair’s Government, with Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary, refused to stop arming Indonesia – “exposing Labour’s ‘ethical foreign policy’ for the sham it was”, notes Needham. Yet, the action of these dedicated activists arguably played a role in ending the occupation of East Timor and will inspire fellow activists for years to come. Best of all it is a barnstorming and engrossing read that will have readers racing to the end to find out what happens next.

Why civil resistance works

Why Civil Resistance Works
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
17 February 2014

I’ve been reviewing books for over eight years and feel I’ve just finished one of the most important books I’ve ever read. It’s a book that should cause a paradigm shift in international politics and foreign policy because it turns a lot of conventional thinking on its head.

The book is Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, co-authored by Erica Chenoweth, an Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan University, and Maria J. Stephan, a strategic planner with the US State Department.

Analysing 323 examples of resistance campaigns and rebellion from 1900 to 2006, Chenoweth and Stephan conclude nonviolent campaigns have been twice as successful as violent campaigns in achieving their objectives. They contend that this difference is down to nonviolent campaigns being more likely to attract mass support, noting “the moral, physical, informational, and commitment barriers are much lower for nonviolent resistance than for violent insurgency.” This greater level of participation tends to lead to more tactical innovation, more loyalty shifts among the regime’s supporters and raises the political, economic and social costs to the regime – all of which increase the overall chances of success. Moreover, they find that nonviolent resistance campaigns are more likely to lead to democratic forms of government than violent campaigns.

Chenoweth and Stephan’s conclusions chime with Gene Sharp, the world’s leading expert on nonviolence, who told me that using violence to overthrow a dictatorship was foolish: “If your enemy has massive capacity for violence – and modern governments today have massive capacity for violence – why deliberately choose to fight with your enemy’s best weapons? They are guaranteed to win, almost certainly.”

Like me, no doubt many people will be surprised by these findings. But our ignorance isn’t surprising when one considers just how dominant the conventional view of power and violence is: physical and military force is seen as the most powerful and effective action an individual, group or society can take, while nonviolence is viewed as idealistic, passive and fearful of confrontation.

Nonviolent resistance has been hidden from history. We can all rattle off the names and dates of famous battles in recent history, but how many of us know about how peaceful demonstrations overthrew the Guatemalan dictator General Ubico in 1944? Or how mass protests overthrew Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines in 1986? If Ben Affleck wasn’t so American-centric Argo would have told the extraordinary story of how the Shah of Iran was deposed in 1979 by a campaign of civil resistance rather than focussing on staff from the US Embassy that had supported the dictatorship.

Civil resistance is rarely taken seriously in the media. Even the most radical voices at the Guardian seem to be as quick as many others to support violence. Writing about the looming war in Iraq in late 2002 George Monbiot quickly summarised one proposed diplomatic solution to the crisis before arguing “If war turns out to be the only means of removing Saddam, then let us support a war whose sole and incontestable purpose is that and only that”. A decade later Comment is Free regular Richard Seymour dismissed the idea of nonviolent resistance to the Syrian Government and backed violent resistance as the most effective option.

“Ah, this is all well and good”, the sceptic will say, “but how can nonviolence possibly succeed against a repressive dictatorship?” According to Chenoweth and Stephan, the evidence they have collected “rejects the claim that there are some types of states against which only violence will work.” Rather their results show “that when regimes crack down violently, reliance on a nonviolent strategy increases the probability of campaign success”. The Iranian Government overthrown in 1979 had the worst human rights record of any country in the world, according to Amnesty International in 1976. Not harsh enough for you? How about East Timor, where Amnesty International reported Indonesian troops had killed 200,000 people between their 1975 invasion and 1999 – approximately one third of the total population of East Timor. Despite this mass murder a largely nonviolent mass movement eventually managed to eject the Indonesian forces, and declared independence in 2002.

Another tick in the pro column for nonviolent resistance is the fact it generally leads to a much smaller death toll – on all sides of a conflict. For example, the largely nonviolent people power in Tunisia and Egypt overthrew their dictators with far less death and destruction than the violent (and externally supported) uprisings in Libya and Syria.

Of course, nonviolent resistance is not a magic wand and does not guarantee success. However, the hard evidence shows it generally has the strategic edge over violent resistance. With the debate over Western intervention in Syria rumbling on among liberal commentators, Chenoweth and Stephan’s findings raise profound questions for those living under dictatorships and Western citizens considering how best to help those resisting oppression.