A BUDDHIST RESPONSE TO 9/11/01

The September 11 terrorist attacks were shocking in their nature and magnitude. They were rightly condemned by leaders around the world and demand a response. However, by responding violently to the attacks the USA and its allies, especially the UK, risk perpetuating and escalating the cycle of violence that led to the attacks in the first place.

A day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Dalai Lama sent to President George W. Bush, as expression of his shock and sadness at the devastation and suffering caused by attacks, and conveyed the prayers of the Tibetan people for those who were killed, injured, and traumatized. Then, speaking as one leader to another, His Holiness wrote,

It may seem presumptuous on my part, but I personally believe we need to think seriously whether a violent action is the right thing to do and in the greater interest of the nation and people in the long run. I believe violence will only increase the cycle of violence. But how do we deal with hatred and anger, which are often the root causes of such senseless violence? This is a very difficult question, especially when it concerns a nation and we have certain fixed conceptions of how to deal with such attacks. I am sure that you will make the right decision.

Please note the words fixed conceptions, because Buddhists are trained to understand that our preconceptions are often biased, due to fear, love, hatred and delusion. Only with mindful critical self-awareness, can one be able to overcome preconceived ideas.

Two weeks after the terrorist attacks, on September 25, Thich Nhat Hanh ran a full-page ad in the New York Times. Announcing an evening of meditation and music on the theme "Embracing Anger" to be held at Manhattan's Riverside Church that night, the ad featured a poem and a statement on violence by Thich Nhat Hanh. The poem is entitled "For Warmth."

I hold my face in my two hands.
No I am not crying.
I hold my face in my two hands.
To keep my loneliness warm
two hands protecting,
two hands nourishing,
two hands preventing,
my soul from leaving me in anger.

What does this poem say to us?
Nhat Hanh explains, "I wrote this poem during the Vietnam War after I heard about the bombing of Ben Tre city. The city of 300,000 was destroyed because guerrillas fired several rounds of unsuccessful anti-aircraft gunfire and then left. My pain was profound."

The statement was similar to the Dalai Lama's message to President Bush. It expressed personal condolences for all who suffered in the attacks; it offered the teaching that violence is a form of injustice, which is compounded a thousand-fold by violent retaliation; and it conveyed heartfelt wishes and prayers for awareness, compassion, and healing. Nhat Hanh announced that he and others had begun a ten-day fast in support of all who suffered in the attacks, and, like the Dalai Lama's expression of confidence in the President's judgment, he ended with "the conviction that America possesses enough wisdom and courage to perform an act of forgiveness and compassion."

Like the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh has consistently practiced non-opposition, non-separation, and operational interdependence in his political statements and actions. During the War in Vietnam, he refused to denounce the Diem regime, though he approved the movement that brought it down. According to Professor Sallie King, his support was possible because the anti-Diem forces, including leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church, were "a spontaneous movement 'without any prescribed doctrine,' with 'pure intention,' without any thought of 'toppling the Diem government in order to come to power,' [in which] 'no desire, no ambition, [was] involved.'"

These principles are set forth in two of Thich Nhat Hanh's best-known writings: the poem, "Please Call Me By My True Names," and the fourteen precepts of his Tiep Hien Order, or Order of Interbeing. The poem was written in 1976 when Nhat Hanh learned of the suicide of a twelve-year-old girl, one of the "boat people" crossing the Gulf of Siam. She was raped by a sea pirate and threw herself into the sea. The poet, familiar with the harsh conditions in the remote villages along the coast of Siam where the pirate grew up, wrote of his deep identification with the girl and the pirate. "I was angry when I received the news of her death, but I learned after meditation for several hours that I could not just take sides against the pirate. I saw that if I had been born in his village and brought up under the same conditions, I would be exactly like him."

Commenting on the poem years later, Nhat Hanh adds--in words that prefigure his response to the attacks of September 11--"We think we need an enemy. Governments work hard to get us to be afraid and to hate so we will rally behind them. If we do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us. … It is not correct to believe that the world's situation is in the hands of the government and that if the President would only have the correct policies, there would be peace."

For the most part our societies and cultural identities are built upon ideas of exclusivity. For example, the myth of Japanese uniqueness, China as the great Middle Kingdom, Greece as the seat of western culture, and the United States as the great modern democracy. These cultural identities can be helpful but often they are a cause of violence when we come into contact with others that share different cultural myths of exclusivity. The challenge for us all at this time is to not allow the weight of our historical myths, nor our governments nor our religious leaders to rationalize acts of violence. We must learn to re-examine these myths, carry them a little more lightly and if possible even let go of them in favor of a myth of the unity of all sentient life.

It is very important to understand that nonviolence is an effective and very powerful response to conflict. It does not mean doing nothing. It is actually a powerful force that can make real. Peace is not merely the absence of war. Peace is a proactive, comprehensive process of finding ground through open communication and putting into practice a philosophy of non-harm and sharing resources. Creating a culture of peace is an active process.

The actual state of peace, like violence, is a manifestation of all our actions in building culture and social structures. So it is a very essential and active process to right now build cultures of peace. For example, putting messages of peace and reconciliation on our television shows rather than ones of violence and revenge. Johan Galtung said, "Peace is the condition in space for nonviolent development… and that makes development a more basic concept than peace." But development here is not merely the kind of economic development which has itself created so much violence in the world by forcing cultures into a single model of rapid industrialization. Development here is more holistic. It includes economic development but can also be understood by the Buddhist term bhavana, which means spiritual development. In this way, there are many active things we can do in creating a culture of peace, the most principal of which is learning. In a globalized world, this means the studying and learning of other cultures and peoples and the different ways that they think.

When confronted with large-scale conflicts there is no question that they demand a response. The problem is that many people believe that a nonviolent response means doing nothing, whereas responding with force or violence means doing something. The Middle Way of Buddhism defines very well how one should respond to violence. It is about avoiding extremes--doing nothing on the one hand, or responding with like violence on the other.

Despite all the suffering that the Tibetan people have had to endure as a result of the Chinese occupation of their country, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has never expressed hatred towards the Chinese; in fact he always encourages us to be compassionate toward the Chinese leaders. He only seeks to engage in dialogue with them in order to resolve the conflict between Tibet and China by peaceful means.

Through dialogue so much can be achieved. When two parties in conflict are prepared to listen to each other, and to see each other not as enemies but as human beings, then the animosity between them can be dissolved. Overcoming the dualistic thinking that divides the world into good and evil, friend and enemy, is the basis of violence. And nonviolence is the basis of peace.

When the Buddhist philosopher, Nagarjuna, was asked to summarize the Buddha's teaching in one word, he replied ahimsa, a Sanskrit word meaning nonviolence. Nonviolence is one of the basic teaching of the Buddha. However, there is a common misconception that nonviolence is somehow equivalent to non-action. Samdhong Rinpoche says, "Nonviolence is an action; it is not merely the absence of violence."

For a violent action to occur there must first be a desire or intention in one's mind to commit the action. In the Buddhist view this desire arises as a result of greed, hatred or ignorance. Some people may commit a violent action because of ignorance--they do not know what is right or wrong. Others may act out of hatred. There also needs to be an object toward which an act of violence is directed. Finally the person committing the act of violence must carry out the action against that object. And the action may be either partially or completely fulfilled.

Since violence has its origins in the three poisons of the mind--greed, hatred and ignorance or delusion--in order to act nonviolently one must overcome these three poisons. One must develop the mental attitude that is the opposite of greed, ignorance and hatred. Nonviolent action also requires an intention, an object and an act, but the intention of the action requires a transformation of those attitudes that breed violence.

One of the most simple actions in creating a culture of nonviolence and awakening is working to dismantle and disarm the violence inside of us and inside of our societies. Individually, we may not be ready to take on the National Rifle Association or the larger arms industry. However, we can all work on disarming the anger and violence in our own hearts and in our own families during in our daily lives.

Merely refraining from acts of violence only succeeds on the most basic level in curtailing violence. To cultivate the good qualities of the mind and actively carry out nonviolent actions requires a higher level of understanding. So, in order to truly practice nonviolence we need to eliminate the three poisons of greed, anger and ignorance and cultivate positive qualities transforming the three poisons with generosity, compassion and wisdom.

This is why the practice of meditation is very important. Practicing meditation allows us to understand what controls us, to really know our own mind. Through meditation we come to see the love, hate, fear and delusion in our minds. By understanding and acknowledging these feeling and attitudes we can overcome our prejudices. This provides a basis for problem solving: the basis of wisdom and compassion. Together these form the basis for a non-violent response.

Meditation practice also allows the development of upekkha or the "mind of equanimity." Buddhism talks of the four brahmaviharas or divine abodes. Upekkha is the fourth brahmavihara. Venerable P.A. Payutto, a leading Thai scholar-monk who taught at Swarthmore several years ago, explains upekkha as "Seeing things as they are with a mind that is even, steady, firm and fair like a pair of scales; understanding that all beings experience good and evil in accordance with the causes they have created; [and the readiness] to judge, position oneself, and act in accordance with principle, reason and equity." The one who has upekkha is fully aware of what is going on but without being blinded by attachment. This does not mean hermetic isolation, apathy or insensitivity. It is a mindful detachment that allows the development of wisdom. Wisdom is what really allows us to help others with compassion and understanding.

In the Pali scriptures of my tradition there's a story about a conflict that had broken out between the Sakyas and the Koliyas over water and the kings of the two states were preparing to go to war. The Buddha came and said to the king, "How much is the water worth, great king," "Very little,Reverend Sir," the king replied to which the Buddha responded. "It is not fitting that for a little water you should destroy warriors who are beyond price." Those listening fell silent. The Buddha then addressed them further, "Great kings, why do you act in this manner? Were I not present today you would set flowing a river of blood. You have acted in a most unbecoming manner."

Had the Buddha done nothing and allowed a war to begin that would not have been acting nonviolently. In fact, failing to intervene in this situation would have been an act of violence itself. The Buddha intervened in the conflict in a nonviolent manner; The story demonstrates that Buddhism is not otherworldly but is actively engaged with the world--but in a non-violent manner.

The fact that the Buddha, was revered by both sides of the conflict helped a great deal. We can find similar examples in history and today. When the Nazis wanted to kill the Jews in occupied Denmark during the Second World War, King Fedrick IX declared that if his Jewish subjects were captured by the Germans, he too would wear the Star of David, which meant that they would have to kill him too. The mighty German army did not touch the Danish Jews. Moral courage is sometimes stronger than the mighty weapons of any dictatorial regime. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's lifestyle, with fearless spiritual strength and her compassion towards her oppressors has helped to soften the military Junta in Burma.

Another great personality of the last century was also Badshah Khan, the Gandhi of the frontier. He was a devout Muslim and was able to persuade his people, the Pathan, one of the most belligerent ethnic groups in the whole world, to renounce violence and he organized 100,000 men as an army of nonviolence in Pakistan and Afghanistan for many years, since his youth until he passed away in 1988 at the age of ninety-eight. His last message is still relevant. "Why do we still produce weapons of mass destruction?"

I hope the Nobel committee giving the peace prize to Jimmy Carter this year for his nonviolent activities around the word throughout this decade as well as his criticism of a possible American attack on Iraq may effect the minds of the America's policy makers.

Another concept that Buddhism brings to an understanding of violence is the doctrine of Karma. Everything we experience is the result of previous causes and conditions. As the opening verses of the Dhammapada teach us, "If one acts with a corrupt mind suffering follows. If one acts with a serene mind peace follows." We must be aware that how we act now will affect our life in the future. We reap what we sow and we cannot avoid the results of our karma. Having this awareness we will then try our best to sow seeds of peace.

Meditation is an important practice. However, by itself it is not enough. Many Buddhists meditate and attain a certain amount of inner peace. However, many return to their jobs which are part the structures of violence in our societies. Still others have no idea how to apply their inner peace to social problems. It is very important when we mediate to reflect on social problems as much as personal problems. Social problems are merely an extension of our personal problems. By using the teachings of karma and interdependence, we can look deeply at the connections between our personal misperceptions and our social and cultural misperceptions. We must investigate deeply the causes and conditions that connect our personal behaviour with social problems. For example, how does my own sense of anger and fear of death support my societies anger and fear and death which in turn makes it strike out violently towards other individuals and societies which it sees as different and threatening. By seeing more deeply the web of causal chains, we can use meditative mindfulness to short circuit the feelings of anger and fear as they arise in our daily lives. When more and more people can start doing this we begin to bring mediation into action and create a culture of peace.

The US campaign against Iraq has gone on for over a decade now and with what result? Saddam Hussein still remains in power and the Iraqi people have endured untold suffering as a result of harsh trade sanctions. However during the Iran-Iraq war Saddam was supported by the USA and supplied with its arms.

US foreign policy in the Middle East has apparently contributed to the escalation of violence in that region. Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that the death of an estimated 500,000 children as a result of US economic sanctions was "a very hard choice" but "the price is worth it." This kind of attitude combined with ongoing conflicts and poverty in the region has fostered the feelings of resentment that led to the terrorist attacks against the USA.

Another story from the life of the Buddha demonstrates the relevance the law of karma for our lives today. The King of Kosala wanted to be related to the Buddha, so he asked for a princess from the royal Sakya family to be his queen. The Sakya, the clan from which the Buddha was born was very caste- conscious and refused to allow marriage outside their related clans. Although they regarded Kosala as a mightier kingdom, they still did not wish to consider that royal family, caste-wise, as equal to theirs. However, a compromise was reached by sending a princess, born of a slave girl, to be the Queen of Kosala. Vidhudhabha was the son of this queen. Neither he nor his father knew that the queen was an outcaste. When the young prince went to visit his maternal grandfather and maternal relatives among the Sakya clan, he accidentally discovered that they all looked down on him because his mother was a slave girl. Consequently, the young prince vowed to kill all members of the Sakya clan in revenge.

When Vidhudhabha succeeded his father to the throne of Kosala, he marched the army northward to attack the Sakyas. When the Buddha learned of the situation he.went to sit at the border of the two kingdoms and was able to stop the warlike king. Yet the Buddha was finally unable to convince the king to get rid of his hatred and desire for revenge. Eventually, the king managed to kill almost all members of the Sakya family. On his return home, however, Vidhudhabha and his troops were drowned in a river.

One can draw many conclusions from this incident. However, if we believe in the law of karma, we realize that each individual, each family, each nation will reap the benefits or otherwise of their own deeds, speech, and actions. Although the Sakya clan produced a wonderful person who eventually became the Buddha and preached that people should get rid of caste and class barriers, they held views in opposition to his teaching. They also deceived the King of Kosala who was more powerful than they were. As for Vidhudhabha his bad thoughts led him to bad action and his life ended tragically.

It also shows that the Buddha too could fail and this was not the only occasion. Even among his monks who prided themselves in their pure moral conducts sometimes would not listen to the Buddha either. They did not realize that attaching to righteous conducts made them arrogance and haughty.

So how does this story relate to the September 11 terrorist attacks. For Buddhists the law of karma reminds us that when faced with violence we should not react violently. To quote a famous verse from the Dhammapada:

Hatred does not eradicate hatred.
Only by loving-kindness is hatred dissolved.
This law is ancient and eternal.

As Mahatma Gandhi put it, "An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind."

Three days after the September attacks, President Bush declared that the United States has been called to a new worldwide mission "to rid the world of evil," and two days after that he said that the US government is determined to "rid the world of evil-doers." America, the defender of freedom, now has a responsibility to rid the world of evil. We may no longer have an "evil empire" to defeat, but we have found a more sinister evil that will require a protracted, all-out war to destroy. Later President Bush unwisely referred to this war as a "crusade," and in his State of the Union address he identified a new "axis of evil," including Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

If anything is evil, the terrorist attacks on September 11 were evil. That must not be forgotten in what follows. At the same time, however, we need to take a critical look at such rhetoric. When President Bush said he wanted to rid the world of evil, alarm bells went off in my mind, because that is also what Hitler and Stalin* wanted to do.

What was the problem with Jews that required a "final solution"? The earth could be made pure for the Aryan race only by exterminating the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally-defective, and so on.-all the impure vermin who contaminated it. Stalin needed to exterminate well-to-do Russian peasants in order to establish his ideal society of collective farmers. Both of these great villains were trying to perfect the world by eliminating its impurities. The world can be made good only by destroying its evil elements.

This reminds me of a selection from The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn,

"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

Not only Buddhists but Christians, Jews and Muslims--all the religions--need to be critically mindful and fully aware when confronted with violence, and then find the skillful means to deal with the situation nonviolently.

In the face of global terrorism it is important to keep in mind structural violence. We should not limit our thinking to believing that violence is limited merely to acts of war or terrorism. Every day 40,000 people starve to death in a world where there is an abundance of food. The global economic system enriches a relatively few while everyday more and more people are pushed into poverty. Twenty percent of the world's population has over eighty percent of the world's wealth. In order for a few to enjoy wealth others are deprived of a decent livelihood. This is really one of the world's greatest injustices. The problem with structural violence is that it is difficult to see it. Many people just dismiss it by saying that's the way things are, or that there is no other way.

The roots of much global conflict lie in structural violence. The economic forces of globalization, prompted by the countries of the North, transnational corporations and institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and WTO, not only condemn many to poverty but they provide a breeding ground for hatred and greed which in turn give rise to violence. Hopefully the growing awareness of the negative effects of economic globalization will lead to more inclusive and egalitarian policies. I recently attended a meeting of the World Faiths Development Dialogue sponsored by the World Bank and The Archbishop of Canterbury with such noble aims.

Again it is important here to look at our own belief systems and look at the belief systems in our society. These create structures like the World Bank which we believe are reasonable, almost even natural. Yet for people from other societies they may seem rather strange, or even worse they may seem to embody certain prejudices which give unfair advantage to us. For example, would we think Islamic banking or the highly controlled corporate structure of Japan to be good ideas? Maybe we would think these structures to be absurd and alien. In this way, we might reflect that Muslims and Japanese think the same way about the World Bank and the inherent western values imbedded in its structure. The question is not which one is better or who is right? The question is more, doesn't everyone have the right to pursue their own style of development? When we impose our own structures on others, believing deeply that they are normal, rational and righteous, we can easily engage in structural violence. By overcoming structural violence we can prevent much of the violent conflict we see in the world today.

I would now like to consider how nonviolence could provide an effective response to situations of global conflict.

We can define three types of response to global conflict. These are peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding. Peacekeeping means keeping people from attacking each other. Peacemaking means the process of forging a settlement between belligerent sides in a conflict. Peacebuilding refers to the entire range of long-term approaches to developing peaceful communities and societies based on principles of co-existence, tolerance, justice, equal opportunity and compassion.

The first, peacekeeping, seems to attract the most attention but it is a bit like firefighting. It's necessary to put out the fire, but it is much better if we can prevent the fire from starting in the first place. This is where peacebuilding comes in. I spoke just now about structural violence. In many ways peacebuilding addresses this structural violence and prevents conflicts from arising in the first place. Peacebuilding initiatives can take many forms--education, grassroots democracy, alleviating poverty, and land reform. They are all fundamentally nonviolent. The Sarvodaya Movement in which has sponsored programs in 11,000 villages in Srilanka is an excellent example of peacebuilding based on Buddhist principles.

Thich Nhat Hanh says, "To prevent war, to prevent the next crisis, we must start right now. When a war or crisis has begun, it is already too late. If we and our children practice ahimsa in our daily lives, if we learn to plant seeds of peace and reconciliation in our hearts and minds, we will begin to establish real peace and, in that way, we may be able to prevent the next war." So this idea of peacebuilding, preventing wars before they begin, is imperative. This work attracts no headlines; in fact nobody may even notice it, but it really is crucial. When a war has started it is very difficult to stop it. We need to start thinking about how we can stop the next war that may start next year or ten years from now.

In order to create a culture of peace, first we must make societies more just, more fair, and give equal rights to all people. The imposition of a so-called peace has, in fact, at times been used as a tool of suppression. Look at the many programs for pacification throughout history. In many cases, the institutionalized definition of peace is tantamount to the suppression of righteous struggles for equal rights and justice. In other cases, the institutionalization of peace is really propaganda for maintaining the status quo of an unjust government or system. The real development of a culture of peace begins at ground level.

The struggle (fight) for righteousness, purity, goodness and peace is frought with many dangers. Once we formulate our own conception of what is right and good and begin to impose it on others, our struggle for goodness becomes violent. The first step towards a truly peaceful society is honoring and respecting the opinions and feelings of others that differ with our own.

The power of transnational grassroots movements in this regard should not be underestimated. They are a powerful force for change. For example, the issue of East Timor was kept alive by small groups of activists working tirelessly for many years while the international media and governments totally ignored the issue. The issue of economic globalization has been put firmly on the agenda by activists worldwide. The major protests in Seattle, Prague and Washington have forced a debate on the issues. The media and governments can no longer ignore or dismiss them. We should never give up hope that change will occur. Peacebuilding at the grassroots level is the key to ensuring a long-term just peace.

It is very important for this new movement to remain ideologically open minded. It must not designate enemies or it will itself become a force of violence. There is great hope for this movement in the fact that generally it is all about the celebration of global diversity. This celebration of diversity and tolerance are keys in the creation of cultures of peace.

Peacemaking is the process of forging an agreement between two sides that are in conflict. The key to this is dialogue and the most important part of a dialogue is listening. Unfortunately much of the so-called dialogue that goes on in the world today is nothing more than two parties delivering their own separate monologues. Only through a process of active listening can genuine dialogue occur. To engage in this active listening we need to have seeds of peace within. If we have seeds of peace within ourselves then we can listen without animosity or making immediate judgments about good or evil. For dialogue to be meaningful both sides must be prepared to engage in the dialogue without preconceptions. They must give up their preconceived ideas of what the outcome must be. If dialogue can be approached in this way the outcome can often be unexpected and wonderful for both sides.

Reconciliation is a key part of peacemaking. A peacemaker who can create a culture of truth, forgiveness, and cooperation through acts of reconciliation. A culture of reconciliation is our best hope to heal past injustices and foster individual and societal transformation. Reconciliation means that both sides must be willing to forgive and while it acknowledges the past, it also acknowledges the need to look forward and live together peacefully in the future.

A real culture of reconciliation involves a re-examination of our concept of justice. When we perceive that another has done something wrong, how do we confront this? Do we decide that "justice" must be served and establish a system of judgment whereby a punishment is handed down to the "offender". Or do we seek to understand the causes of the conflict, that is, not that one person or group has done something wrong, but rather that there is a conflict of interest and values between TWO individuals or groups. A restorative justice seeks to mediate this conflict, establish understanding, and if need be, work on transforming certain attitudes through education rather than handing down punishment. Peacemaking is an endless task. The work never stops, but that does not mean we should stop doing it. A peacemaker has been characterized as one who knowing that the well needs water climbs up the mountain to the snowline, takes a spoonful of snow, goes down the mountain, drops it in the well and then continues to ascend the mountain again and again. Because the need for peacemaking is overwhelming we should never stop doing it.

Peacekeeping is more problematic. Although it is often done with good intentions, military-led peacekeeping uses the means of ordinary conflict for the goal of peace. So while this form of peacekeeping may help minimize the magnitude of a conflict it cannot guarantee long-term peace. Peacekeeping may prevent violence in the short term, but it is more important thing to address the underlying causes of violence. This is the only way to ensure peace in the long-term.

It is also critical to recognize that some forms of supposedly nonviolent intervention in conflicts can actually be violent. For example, trade sanctions against Iraq have contributed to the death of more people than bombs did in the Gulf War. These forms of peacekeeping are based on threats or force. A nonviolent response is based on metta karuna or loving-kindness and compassion. His Holiness the Dalai Lama uses the term "universal responsibility" to describe the motivation for a nonviolent response to conflict. The Quakers were able to break the food blockade against Germany and Austria after World War One. They were motivated by a sense of "universal responsibility" to the people of Germany and Austria. Thirty years later they were able to rescue Jews inside Germany at the height of the war. They did not use threats of punishment. Instead they used their love and concern for others as a motivation for their action. Because they were present without threats their presence was tolerated at a time of extraordinary violence.

Small numbers of people have been able to enter extremely violent situations in a nonviolent spirit and accomplish reductions in conflict with almost no personal casualties. Examples of these efforts are ignored by the mass media and are often carried out by idealistic individuals with very few resources. Given that they have been able to achieve so much with so little support, just imagine what could be achieved if more people took this kind of work seriously and it received the same kind of support that conventional conflict resolution does. Usually these types of initiatives are tolerated by governments and other institutions, but the Quakers received condemnation from the US government for their evenhanded delivery of aid to North and South Vietnam in the 1960s.

Examples of the successful use of nonviolence in recent decades are many: the nonviolent overthrow of the Thai dictatorship in October 1973; the end of the Marcos government in the Philippines; the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989; Xanana Gusmao's command to Falintil to remain hidden in the jungle while Indonesian militias rampaged through the country after the referendum in 1999 so on.

Nonviolence takes great courage--it does not mean opting out or doing nothing. It is an active force. The image of a lone protestor standing in front of a tank in Tian'anmen Square and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi confronting the Burmese military with her great determination are two powerful reminders of the courage required to engage in nonviolence.

While creating a culture of peace is the most important thing and prevention is better than cure, we still need to be able to respond to violent situations in creative, nonviolent ways. These can be very effective and beneficial to all sides in the conflict. Too often people are content with the status quo, but the September 11 the status quo has been shattered and therefore we must carefully examine with this new situation.

Society invests so much in war and violence. If similar investments were made in peace and nonviolence the results would be beyond our imaginations. As Mahatma Gandhi says, "We are constantly being astonished these days at the amazing discoveries in the field of violence. But I maintain that far more undreamt of and seemingly impossible discoveries will be made in the field of nonviolence."

America is now the world's only superpower. Since the end of the Second World War it has dominated the world with a combination of economic and military power and since the collapse of the Soviet Union its role has been unchallenged. Yet, America's true power rests not in its military and economic might but in its constitution, democratic institutions, its ideals of liberty and justice for all peoples, its spirit of generosity and compassion, and America's crucial leadership in the creation of the United Nations and fostering a spirit of internationalism. Today, America is at a crossroads. Will it move in a militant, nationalistic, unilateral, have it our way, love us or leave us direction? Or will the United States take upon itself a new mantle of world leadership to promote peace and justice, democratic political institutions, fairer and more egalitarian economic systems the world over.

Hopefully, the tragedy of 9/11 will not bred seeds of anger and vengeance but seeds of peace that will inspire this country to a more profound sense of the interdependence of all nations and life-communities, and to the challenge of a global peace initiative that surpasses even its most noble efforts after Second World War that rebuilt a war-torn world.

It really is up to us to find the imagination and courage to take the initiative to make these discoveries.

Sulak Sivaraksa's public lecture at Swarthmore College on October 24,2002 and Warren Wilson College on November 9, 2002.

*When I made my first public lecture on this topic at Swarthmore College, a number of my listeners thought that I equated Bush with Hitler and Stalin although that was not my intention. However between 1932 and 1972, four hundred American citizens in Alabama, all of them poor and black, were used as unwitting guinea pigs by the Public Health Service in order to study the long-term development of syphilis. The patients were promised free health care, plus other minor advantages (including five thousand dollars to cover their funerals), if they agreed to go in regularly for checkups. In fact, they received no treatment at all. This was known as the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, and was quite simply a study of the evolution of untreated syphilis, conducted by doctors and respectable scientists who then published their results in equally respectable medical journals. Twenty-eight patients died of the disease and one hundred of secondary complications, while forty wives and nineteen babies were contaminated. The study was abruptly broken off when a journalist, Jean Heller, brought it to the attention of the general public. Not one of the members of the Health Service that carried out the study expressed the slightest regret. But these were not Nazi doctors. The victims were finally given some small compensation, but not one doctor was brought to trial. It was only in 1997 that President Clinton apologized in the name of the American people. For four decades poor black Americans were made to suffer from the welfare of the White. Between 1936 and 1976 the Swedish government sterilized sixty people who were considered to be interior. In my country a man was very successful in his method of family planning by using for sterilization the poor as his guinea pigs. I wander whether he had leant from Sweden or from Alabama in the U.S.A.