The Implementation of

Violence
and its Effect on

World Peace

By Rishi Garg
 2

Violence is an essential part of protests around the world, but ultimately it is a roadblock

on the path to world peace. The word peace, as defined by Webster's Dictionary, means “a state

of tranquility or quiet as freedom from civil disturbance.” How can one be sovereign from

disturbance if violence is implemented in society? Many say that with the removal of violence

from society, world peace may be achieved. However, by examining the history of violence in

protests, one can see that it is both an essential part of protest and has slowed down compromise.

An example of a widely publicized protest is the fight against apartheid in South Africa.

Apartheid, by definition, is “a former policy of segregation and political and economic

discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa.” It is the equivalent

of, if not greater than, racial discrimination against African-Americans in 20th century America.

During the ongoing protest, many gruesome acts of violence were committed. In 1960, the Pan-

African Congress (PAC) and the African National Congress (ANC), both black nationalist

groups, held a peaceful demonstration in Sharpeville, where South African police massacred 69

blacks. The African-American community engaged in strikes and riots, causing the government

to declare a state of emergency and ban both the ANC and the PAC. Leaders of both groups were

brought to believe that violence was the only way to solve the conflict. In 1964, Nelson Mandela,

the leader of the ANC, and many others were sentenced to life imprisonment. Other black leaders

continued the struggle and eventually democracy was introduced to South Africa in 1994. One

can see that violence slowed down the coming of the solution.

Many believe that violence cannot solve conflicts. However, few brave people have set

forth practicing non-violent protests. One of these fortitudinous people was Mohandas Gandhi.

He was a major political and spiritual leader of the Indian Independence Movement.

East India was under British rule until 1945. From 1857 until 1945, there were riots and

protests because many native Indians wanted independence from Britain. The British degraded
 3

the civil rights of the Indians. An example of this is when the British rulers in India had imposed

outrageous taxes on the natives, and the Indians could not keep up with all the work. The Indian

National Congress launched the first campaign against the British under the leadership of

Mohandas Gandhi. His non-violent beliefs inspired people all over India to hold non-violent

protests and marches. Gandhi believed that the enemy should be confronted with love instead of

hate, and eventually the enemy would see the greater good and love in return. He coined the

word satyagraha, which means rebellion through non-violent mass civil disobedience.

On May 20, 1930, as part of the campaign against salt taxes imposed by the British,

Gandhi held a non-violent raid at the salt works in Dharasana, India. The leader of the raid,

Madame Naidu, warned the Indians that they “must not use violence under any circumstances.”

As they were advancing upon the salt works, police rained blows on their heads with bamboo

sticks. Not one of the protesters hit back. As Webb Miller recalls, “they went down like tenpins.”

Non-violence was a new and bold idea, and had not been tested ever before. Obviously, at that

point in the Indian Independence Movement, non-violent protests were not helping the natives.

Eventually, independence was granted to India by Britain. On August 15, 1947, India

became an independent nation. On January 26, 1950, India became a republic, and was officially

announced as a State. However, many native Indian deaths caused citizens to mourn their losses.

Overall, this example of non-violent protest exemplifies the belief that violence slows down the

coming of a solution.

Many people around the world believe that non-violence is the best way to come to an

agreement because it creates no deaths. Gandhi’s beliefs about non-violence were somewhat

controversial. He was an extremist in the sense that he was willing to die for the sake of non-

violence. Gandhi hated Nazism and believed that during the Holocaust, Jews should have met the

Nazis’ force with passive resistance. This included committing mass suicide, to show Hitler how
 4

strong their minds were. This solution would be redundant because it would neither save the

Jews’ lives nor suppress the Nazis.

The question of whether non-violence is simply brave futility has been aroused for ages.

There are arguments for both sides of the debate. One who would argue that non-violence is

practical could say that it creates fewer deaths. One could also say that non-violence shows the

fortitude of the protesters. However, one who would argue that non-violence is futile may say

that it simply puts protesters up to be shot. As Webb Miller wrote while watching the Indian salt

raids at Dharasana, “the western mind finds it difficult to grasp the idea of nonresistance.”

Violent dictators such as Hitler are not likely to take pity on non-violent protesters. In fact, they

might decide to have some fun and use the marchers as shooting targets. As can be seen from

these arguments, it seems that non-violence is simply brave futility and is useless.

Some believe that the method of protesting should include limited, structured violence.

These people employ the thinking that they must begin to fight more forcefully for their freedom

from oppressive regimes. Many attempt to engage their government in peaceful conferences, but

have been shot down. While protesting peacefully, they have been shot at. They have lost all

hope of peaceful negotiation, or so it seems. These people believe that the next step they must

take is limited violence; they hope to use trained fighters to sabotage buildings and to not induce

human death. An example of a protest involving structured, limited violence is an attack on a

power plant. Electricity-generating non-nuclear power plants are important infrastructure

keystones to the communities they serve. A group of rebels might sabotage the plant so that

electricity may not be generated, rendering a large area literally powerless and expressing a point

to many people. “Non-violence is a tactic that must be abandoned when it no longer works.”

Although structured, limited violence may seem an excellent method of protesting,

violent protesters will argue that it does not create a lasting point. A violent protester might argue
 5

that to induce government officials or people in power to listen to protesters, terror must be

struck in the hearts of the officials. Terror creates a lasting impression of what the protesters

demand and what they might do if their demands are not met. A violent protester might say that

total violence is the only way to guarantee the implementation of their demands, especially if

asked of authoritarian regimes.

One might ask: where does terrorism come from? Terrorists cause terror for a variety of

different reasons, and the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany is a good example of an act of

terrorism.

During the Olympic Games in Munich, Germany, in 1972, a Palestinian group known as

Black September took Israeli athletes hostage inside the Olympic Village. They demanded the

release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel in return for the release of the Israeli hostages they

took. The Israeli government refused, and the German police eventually allowed the terrorists out

of the Olympic Village. However, eleven Israelis, one German policeman, and five terrorists

were killed in a failed German rescue attempt.

In this case of terrorism, the terrorists’ motives were to have the Palestinian prisoners

released. However, they discovered a motive better than their original: publicity. Advances in

satellite technology allowed the world to watch the events take place at the Olympics. People

were horrified and terrified at the monstrosity of the terrorists. The terrorists realized that they

could strike terror into the hearts of the whole world if the right targets were chosen. Many other

terrorist groups realized the same thing, and committed more acts of terrorism for the sole

purpose of gaining the attention of the global community. Throughout the 1970s, terrorism

experts concluded that terrorists acted not to kill people, but to gain attention.

Following the fiasco in Munich, terrorism became more deadly; the international

community prepared for specific terrorist activities such as aircraft hijacking and sabotaging,
 6

attacks on diplomats, and hostage taking. There are similarities between all acts of terrorism.

Generally, the motive is one of the following four: state-sponsorship, religion, money, or power.

State-sponsored terrorism, in which countries anonymously fund terrorist groups to do

their bidding, grew during the 1980s. The majority of the countries which aided terrorist groups

are located in the Middle East. Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Cuba, Sudan, Iraq, and North

Korea make up the current list of states that sponsor terrorism. State-sponsored terrorism is

committed for different motives than other types of terrorism. The terrorist group involved is not

benefiting itself; only the country which provides assistance is benefiting. However, state-

sponsored terrorism is a form of terrorism and is therefore commonly labeled as bad.

Religiously motivated terrorism has caused concern among terrorism experts. Because of

the rapid growth of religiously motivated terrorism, there are more wars and terrorist attacks. In

1980, the U.S. State Department’s list of known international terrorist groups had only one group

with religious affiliation. By 2003, more than half of the groups on the list had some religious

affiliation or ideology. Religiously motivated terrorism is especially dangerous because of

attempts to acquire nuclear weapons by known terrorist groups. It is also dangerous because

religion can blind one so much that he or she loses common sense and simply follows ancient

literature. Many religiously motivated terrorists believe that there is something terribly wrong

with the world, and that the only way to fix it is to force their doctrine on the world.

Terrorism motivated by money is a common and classic type of terrorism. Many movies

feature a plot where terrorists take politicians hostage and demand money in return for the

release of the hostages. Terrorism motivated by money is common in less developed regions of

the world, where, for example, the GDP of the country is below average. However, it can be

found all over the world.

 7

Terrorism to gain power is a very common type of terrorism. Hitler and Nazism is an

excellent example of this. Hitler created a terrorist group, the Nazis, and gained power by

persecuting Jews. This is a very extreme case of terrorism, but nevertheless, the motive in this

example is to gain power. Religiously motivated terrorism may fall under this category because

sometimes terrorist groups want to enforce their religion’s ideologies on other people.

One might ask: why would a group resort to terrorism as a means of expressing

themselves? In many cases the answer is that there are no other options. In more powerful and

developed regions of the world, such as Europe and North America, if one wishes to express an

idea, he or she simply needs to contact their local or state politicians. However, in less developed

regions of the world, the government of a country may be corrupt and there may be no way to

express one’s thoughts. So, one can only resort to terror and violence, which catches the attention

of the whole world. Terrorism is labeled as horrible in developed countries, but is considered a

fine solution to people living in poor countries. However, although terrorism may be a good

solution for some, everyone is left wondering how Europe became so developed, and how the

rest of the world got so behind.

The truth behind the story of Europe’s rapid development is mainly comprised of luck. In

ancient times, the lands of Europe and the Middle East were fertile and very arable. There were

also more people inhabiting those lands; they were forced to develop better hunting and farming

techniques in order to sustain their large population. Out of the nine domesticatable large

animals, the majority were located in Eurasia, including the horse. The inhabitants used these

large animals as meat and to plow their fields. Furthermore, Eurasia is located on an east-west

axis, with similar climates throughout, so edible species of plants could spread out. Most other

regions of the world, such as the Americas, are located on a north-south axis, with varying

climates, preventing plants from spreading.

 8

With more people inhabiting the same land came the demand to expand, so empires such

as the Roman and Greek began exploring the rest of Eurasia, and later explorers sailed to the

Americas. The less developed inhabitants of the newly explored lands were ill-prepared to fight

off the newcomers, having only wooden clubs. The Europeans possessed steel swords, guns, and

horses. The Europeans also brought with them diseases to which the natives of the new lands

were not immune to. With ease, the new lands were conquered and colonized by European

countries. The state in which England is located is called the “United Kingdom” because it used

to possess hundreds of colonies around the world. It was commonly said that “the sun never sets

on the British Empire.”

So, as can be discerned from the above history, Europe was left as the most powerful

region of the world for quite a while. Then, many Europeans moved to North America, and

brought their power and development with them. So, America became powerful as well. The rest

of the world was left in ruins, and that is how it still is today. The majority of the world is

struggling to become developed, and to diminish poverty. One can see how helpless and

powerless terrorists are when they make the decision to use violent terrorism as a means of

expressing their opinions on world issues.

Now is the time to put forth a suggestion for the age-old question: is violence ever

justified? The above essay has put together arguments from both sides of the dispute. One on

hand, there are the non-violent protesters, who believe that violence can only lead to death and

destruction. They believe that enemies should be loved, and eventually the enemy would love in

return. However, believers of violent protest say that non-violence is simply brave futility. It is

dubious that dictators with hearts of stone will have pity for non-violent marchers. Terrorists will

most likely concur with the statement that participation in a non-violent march can only lead to
 9

death. Both sides have agreeable arguments. However, since the question is whether violence is

ever justified, the beliefs of terrorists will be further analyzed.

If one pretends for a moment that he or she is in the place of a law-abiding citizen in the

Gaza Strip, one may be better suited to analyze the situation. The Gaza strip has recently been

declared as having inhuman living conditions by the United Nations, and missiles are launched

near one’s home by Israeli forces nearly every week. According to the United Nations-created

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), “all are entitled to equal protection against any

discrimination in violation of this Declaration.” (Article 7). All includes him or her who lives in

the Gaza Strip. Further quoting the UDHR, “everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of

person,” (Article 3), and “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment.” (Article 5). In his or her situation in the Gaza strip, both of these

articles are clearly being violated. So what can one do? In the preamble of the UDHR, the

following statement is made: “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have

recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be

protected by the rule of law.” All of the articles of the UDHR are based on the assumption that

the preamble is true. According to the above excerpt from the preamble, if human rights are

being violated, and one does not receive any help, it is necessary to protest. Therefore,

considering that the UDHR is an official document, what should he or she who lives in the Gaza

strip do? Rebel, of course.

Now that it is established rebellion may be used against the inhuman living conditions

and missiles, how will one express his or her opinion? There is presently no system in place to

voice one’s thoughts and opinions in that region of the world. It is simple to organize non-violent

marches. However, peaceful negotiating will not likely be useful in this situation, considering the

tendency of the Israelis to use force. His or her children are ill from the chemicals dumped in the
 10

Gaza Strip, and the water is undrinkable. Therefore, violence must be used to grab the attention

of the Israelis, and furthermore, the world. If one makes a bomb and throws it toward an Israeli

center of commerce, he or she will be labeled as a terrorist. However, one person’s terrorist is

another person’s freedom fighter.

He or she who is now a “terrorist” is fighting for their family, for their community, and all

the people who live in it. They are taking a stand against oppression, after nothing else has

worked. They have done no wrong, according to the official UDHR. However, whether the

global community views him or her as a terrorist or freedom fighter depends on whether or not

they have heard the whole story. This is not the case in the majority of situations involving

terrorism. An excellent example is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where both sides are

continuously fighting. Whenever someone tries to intervene and solve the conflict peacefully,

people from both sides feel as if the violation of their civil rights has not been avenged, and they

go back to fighting. The world views the conflict as a struggle between two terrorist groups,

which is not entirely true. For the women and children in the little shacks in the Gaza Strip, the

so-called “terrorists” are their heroes. Therefore, violence is completely justified in protest, as

long as civil rights are being violated, and nothing is being done to help the situation.

So, now that it is established that non-violence is not practical, and violence may be

justified in protest, the last question is addressed: why is world peace so elusive? One might say

that a paradox has been created; how can one argue that violence is justified and wonder why

world peace is elusive? Logically, it is a contradictory argument. However, it provides an

explanation for why world peace is so elusive.

In the first two pages, it was established that violence slows down the coming of a

solution. From pages six through eight, it was proved that violence is justifiable and necessary in

protest. Therefore, violence must be present in rebellion. However, the presence of violence will
 11

deliberate the arrival of a solution to the conflict. So, in theory, in the majority of conflicts, a

solution will not be reached for a long time. Exemplifications of this theory have been shown

throughout history. A few examples are the Protestant Reformation, the American Revolution,

the many protests during the Iraq war, and the Toledo Riot. These examples show that this theory

may be true.

In conclusion, violence is both an essential part of rebellion and a retardation in the

creation of solutions to conflicts. This thesis has been proved in the above essay. This theory can

be applied to a surprisingly high number of historical protests. The terrorists involved in many of

these protests are labeled as terrorists by the majority of the world, but are heroes and freedom

fighters for others. The phrase “think outside the box” would be especially appropriate for this

idea, because people need to look beyond what is advertised in the news. Poor people in

undeveloped regions of the world are barely clinging to life, and the UDHR is not protecting

their rights. As long as people’s civil rights are continuously violated, world peace will not be

achieved for quite a long time.

 12

Outline

I. Introduction
A. Violence is an essential part of protests around the world, but ultimately it is a
roadblock on the path to world peace
B. Violence is essential to protest yet it slows the coming of solutions
II. Struggle against apartheid in South Africa as an example
A. Many acts of violence were committed against blacks in South Africa in the 20th
century
B. Black communities’ violent response
C. Eventually, solution was reached
D. This example proves that violence slows the coming of solutions
III. Non-violence as a solution
A. Background information on Indian protest
B. Gandhi’s influence and beliefs
1. Satyagraha – passive resistance
2. Mass civil disobedience
C. Outcome of non-violent protest
D. This example proves that violence slows the coming of solutions
E. Practicality of non-violence in protests
F. Common belief – non-violence is best
G. Gandhi’s non-violent solution for the Jews during the Holocaust
H. Is non-violence simply brave futility?
IV. Structured, limited violence as a solution
A. Description of beliefs
B. Example – power plant attack
C. Is not as effective as violent protest
V. Origins of violent terrorism
A. Example of terrorism – 1972 Munich Olympics
1. Motives
2. World’s response
3. Techniques
B. Violent terrorism
C. State-sponsored terrorism
D. Common motives
1. Religion
2. Money
3. Power
E. Why resort to terrorism?
1. No other option
a. How Europe and North America became so powerful
2. Blinded by helplessness and powerlessness
VI. Is violence ever justified?
A. Restating arguments
B. Consider the position of a citizen of the Gaza Strip
C. Violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1. Many articles are violated
2. Preamble states that rebellion is justified
 13

D. What can one do? Rebel, of course

E. Are terrorists really terrorists, or are they freedom fighters?
F. This proves that violence is justified, if:
1. Civil rights are violated
2. There is no help for the situation
VII. Why is world peace so elusive?
A. It is proved that violence is justified and present in protest
B. It is proved that violence slows the creation of a solution
C. Therefore, the majority of conflicts will take a long time to solve
D. Exemplifications of theory:
1. Protestant Reformation
2. American Revolution
3. Iraq war
4. Toledo Riot
VIII. Conclusion
A. Restate thesis
B. One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter
C. “Think outside the box,” look past news
D. World peace will take a long time to achieve if civil rights are continuously
violated
 14

Bibliography - Works Cited

“Case Study: Argentina and South Africa.” Authoritarian rule in South Africa.

“Gandhi as Satyagrahi.” Mohandas Gandhi, non-violence, and Satyagraha.

"Indian Independence Movement." Wikipedia. 2006. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 03 Jan 2007
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement>.

Merriam-Webster Online. 2006. Merriam-Webster. 2 Jan 2007 <http://www.m-w.com/>

“Option 2: Use Limited, Structured Violence with Communist Party Support.” The use of limited
violence in protest.

“Part I: The Origins and Evolution of Terrorism.” Modern terror, motives of terrorists, and what
is currently being done.

“The Story of Guns, Germs, and Steel.” Eurasia’s head start and the inequalities created between
Eurasia and the rest of the world.

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
2005. United Nations. 3 Jan 2007 < http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm>