#1: Can Nonviolent Defence be Coordinated with the Military?

Richard Sandbrook

(Author’s note: in the weeks leading up to the release of The Citizen’s Guide to Nonviolent Defence, I will briefly raise key questions posed in the book.)

Nonviolent defence is a strategy of deterrence and resistance in which unarmed civilians play a major role, either alone or in coordination with the armed forces. The civilian volunteers employ their training in nonviolent methods to make their country ungovernable by the occupier and to undermine the pillars of support on which the invader depends.

In Canada, nonviolent defence has to work with the military. Not only is the combination of the two the only politically feasible option, but also the military has important roles to play in joint deployment. The promise of nonviolent defence is not full demilitarization. It is instead a more effective and efficient defence at much lower cost in casualties than the military acting alone. In addition, nonviolent defence builds local networks of trust and cooperation that are the underpinning of a stronger democracy.

But how is it possible to coordinate a defence involving both unarmed civilians and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF)? The two forms of combat are in conflict The military wins by wreaking maximum damage upon its adversary; unarmed civilians succeed by restricting themselves to a range of nonviolent methods that pose no threat of bodily harm to their opponents. The former defends territory; the latter defends society and its cherished values.

Joint deployment clearly demands geographical separation. Nonviolent defence would operate in the populated southern band of Canada; the CAF would be responsible for security in the remainder of Canada and the three oceans, areas in which population is too limited and dispersed to allow for civilian defence. In addition, the armed forces would provide key services to the civilian defenders, including intelligence and protection from cyber-attacks and drones.

Joint deployment requires careful planning and a willingness on both sides to work together. This amicable, and formidable, arrangement will be difficult to achieve, depending on the weight of public opinion to impel experimentation with this old strategic approach that is, today, new again.

Richard Sandbrook is Vice-President of Science for Peace and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Toronto.