Non-naive pacifists

The pacifist movement has been nonexistent for years, neither in Catalonia, nor in Spain, nor in Europe. There are people who are pacifists or who call themselves pacifists, but each in their own way. Wanting peace, in the abstract or in general terms, is a moral stance, not a political program. It has to do with values, with empathy for those who suffer violence, and with the will to change violent structures. From there, there may be organizations that work in this direction, conducting research, denouncing injustices, and sometimes proposing solutions. There is a type of pacifist who is not naive, who usually doesn't even label themselves as such. They simply work: they participate or collaborate in some way in negotiations with armed groups or in contexts of political violence; they make proposals before a war breaks out; with inclusive criteria, they help negotiators when they are in crisis, they thoroughly study the situation and look for alternatives; they appear before parliamentary defense committees with proposals to demilitarize defense policies; They network with other people and study groups to develop new approaches that will be useful in the future, in the post-conflict era; they talk to people on "the other side" to find points of consensus; they give lectures to arms companies in crisis, proposing ways to transform them into companies that produce things of social utility, not weapons of death; they watch the speeches of the world's most important leaders, such as Trump and Putin, daily to see how they think, understand their underlying culture, and see if they make any proposals that can be adapted and improved; they design roadmaps for exiting conflict; they talk to the actors involved, even if their hands are stained with blood; they get their boots dirty treading on muddy ground; they conduct discourse analysis to see if there are any advances in the thinking of people who believe in violence as a means; they are alert to ideologies that normalize the discourse of violence; they create counter-narratives to the fear-mongering discourses created by those who profit from the arms trade; They practice citizen or parallel diplomacy (with governments or institutions), and, above all, they make proposal after proposal, even though no one listens. I could make a four-page list of things that can be done and are being done.

That said, and to focus on the fear that many people in Europe have, feeling that Russia will invade us within five years—even though it hasn't been able to make any progress in Ukraine for two years—I want to explain two things for reflection. The first is that on June 4, 2000, President Clinton went to Moscow to meet with the new Russian president, Putin. This damned man, that day, asked Clinton if Russia could join NATO. Clinton liked the proposal very much, but the next day he told him that first Russia had to end the war in Chechnya. The following year, 2001, Putin asked NATO Secretary General George Robertson how his application to join NATO was progressing, and the Secretary General told him that it had to be formalized in writing and that it might take some time. What happened next was the exact opposite of what Putin wanted: seven countries bordering or near Russia joined NATO. End of the story that could have changed the world. The second thing I want to mention, because no one has talked about it, is that last November 27th, in response to speeches about Russia wanting to invade Europe, Putin proposed bringing together all European countries and formalizing, in whatever way they deemed appropriate, a non-aggression pact, a commitment that Russia would never invade any European country, as well as speaking to European countries. Those who aren't naive about pacifism know Putin's tricks, but they would take him at his word and organize this meeting of all European leaders. It's worth a try. The problem is that neither now nor before, when several wars could have been avoided, has anyone had the courage to do so. We lack pacifist politicians who aren't naive.