This video is the fifth session of TNI's "Fractures" internationalist teaching series. The session focuses on the escalating global state of militarization and war, exploring whether the world is heading towards a third world war. Three experts discuss various aspects of militarism, including its economic drivers, geopolitical implications, and the potential for systemic change.
The effectiveness of non-alignment as a strategy to counter militarism is a complex issue discussed in the video. While the recent assertiveness of some Global South states in refusing to condemn actions like Russia's invasion of Ukraine and abstaining from votes at the UN General Assembly shows a potential for a new politics of non-alignment, the video cautions against placing too much hope in nation-states. The speakers argue that this new non-alignment is primarily driven by national interests, unlike the earlier non-aligned movement which was driven more by a shared political vision for a more equitable international order. The video suggests that people-to-people solidarity and internationalism, rather than state-driven multilateralism, are more effective avenues for pushing back against militarism.
Besides non-alignment, the video highlights several other strategies to counter militarism:
Direct Action: This includes protests, boycotts, and even more disruptive actions like those taken by Palestine Action to shut down arms factories. The speakers emphasize the importance of direct action in applying pressure on governments and corporations.
Worker's Movements and Strikes: The speakers suggest that strikes and organized refusal by workers in arms factories or related industries to participate in the production of weapons could significantly disrupt the arms industry.
Information and Awareness Campaigns: Countering the skewed narratives presented by mainstream media through the dissemination of accurate information and raising public awareness about the realities of militarism is crucial.
Challenging the Narrative: The video discusses the importance of critically examining the language used to justify military actions, exposing the ways in which governments and institutions attempt to obscure the realities of war and violence.
Building People-to-People Solidarity: The speakers advocate for fostering international solidarity through mutual aid and collaborative actions focused on addressing the root causes of conflict and violence. This emphasizes building networks and connections across borders rather than solely relying on state-level action.
Political Participation: The speakers suggest that where there is a lack of decent political candidates, movements should consider putting up their own candidates to challenge the existing political establishment and work towards grasping state power.
These strategies are presented as complementary and context-dependent, emphasizing the need for diverse and adaptable approaches to counter the multifaceted nature of global militarism.
The video transcript provides examples of how the US government uses language to obscure the realities of its military actions:
Shifting away from explicit language of war: The Obama administration, for example, moved away from explicitly calling actions a "war on terror," employing terms like "stabilization" and "areas of active hostilities." The use of "stabilization" avoids acknowledging the violence and destruction involved. "Areas of active hostilities" is a deliberate tactic to avoid needing Congressional approval for war.
Employing terms that distract from the reality of war: The use of terms like "stabilization" obscures the fact that the US actions constitute war.
Creating a false narrative of care for civilians: The US government uses language suggesting they care about civilians and take steps to protect them during war. This is intended to channel criticism into debates about the legality and methods of warfare, distracting from the fundamental question of whether the war itself is justified.
These linguistic strategies serve to minimize public criticism and accountability for US military actions.
