The secret to effective nonviolent resistance

War has been a part of my life
since I can remember.

I was born in Afghanistan just six
months after the Soviets invaded,

and even though I was too young
to understand what was happening,

I had a deep sense of the suffering
and the fear around me.

Those early experiences had a major impact
on how I now think about war and conflict.

I learned that when people
have a fundamental issue at stake,

for most of them,

giving in is not an option.

For these types conflicts --

when people's rights are violated,

when their countries are occupied,

when they're oppressed and humiliated,

they need a powerful way
to resist and to fight back.

Which means that no matter how
destructive and terrible violence is,

if people see it as their only choice,

they will use it.

Most of us are concerned
with the level of violence in the world.

But we're not going to end war

by telling people that violence
is morally wrong.

Instead we must offer them a tool

that's at least as powerful
and as effective as violence.

This is the work I do.

For the past 13 years,

I've been teaching people

in some of the most difficult
situations around the world

how they can use non-violent
struggle to conduct conflict.

Most people associate this type of action
with Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

But people have been using
non-violent action for thousands of years.

In fact,

most of the rights that we have
today in this country

as women,

as minorities,

as workers,

as people of different
sexual orientations,

and citizens concerned
with the environment --

these rights weren't handed to us.

They were won by people
who fought for them

and who sacrificed for them.

But because we haven't learned
from this history,

non-violent struggle as a technique
is widely misunderstood.

I met recently with a group
of Ethiopian activists,

and they told me
something that I hear a lot.

They said they'd already
tried non-violent action

and it hadn't worked.

Years ago they held a protest.

The government arrested everyone
and that was the end of that.

The idea that non-violent struggle
is equivalent to street protests

is a real problem.

Because although protests can be a great
way to show that people want change,

on their own they don't
actually create change --

at least change that is fundamental.

(Laughter)

Powerful opponents are not
going to give people what they want

just because they asked nicely ...

or even not so nicely.

(Laughter)

Non-violent struggle works
by destroying an opponent.

Not physically,

but by identifying the institutions
that an opponent needs to survive

and then denying them
those sources of power.

Non-violent activists
can neutralize the military

by causing soldiers to defect.

They can disrupt the economy
through strikes and boycotts.

And they can challenge
government propaganda

by creating alternative media.

There are a variety of methods
that can be used to do this.

My colleague and mentor Jean Sharp

has identified 198 methods
of non-violent action.

And protest is only one.

Let me give you a recent example.

Until a few months ago,

Guatemala was ruled by corrupt
former military officials

with ties to organized crime.

People were generally aware of this,

but most of them felt powerless
to do anything about it ...

until one group of citizens --

just 12 regular people --

put out a call on Facebook
to their friends

to meet in the central plaza holding
signs with a message:

"Renuncia Ya,"

resign already.

To their surprise,

30,000 people showed up.

They stayed there for months
as protests spread throughout the country.

At one point,

the organizers delivered hundreds
of eggs to various government buildings

with a message:

"If you don't have the juevos " --

the balls --

"to stop corrupt candidates
from running for office,

you can borrow ours."

(Laughter)

(Applause)

President Molina responded

by vowing that we would never step down.

And the activists realized
that they couldn't just keep protesting

and ask the President to resign.

They needed to leave him no choice,

so they organized a general strike

in which people throughout
the country refused to work.

In Guatemala City alone,

over 400 businesses
and schools shut their doors.

Meanwhile,

farmers throughout the country
blocked major roads.

Within five days,

the President,

along with dozens of other
government officials,

resigned already.

(Applause)

I've been greatly inspired

by the creativity and bravery
of people using non-violent action

in nearly every country in the world.

For example,

recently a group of activists in Uganda
released a crate of pigs in the streets.

You can see here that the police
are confused about what to do with them.

(Laughter)

The pigs were painted
the color of the ruling party.

One pig was even wearing a hat ...

a hat that people recognized.

(Laughter)

Activists around the world are getting
better at grabbing headlines,

but these isolated actions do very little
if they're not part of a larger strategy.

A general wouldn't march
his troops into battle

unless he had a plan to win the war,

yet this is how most of the world's
non-violent movements operate.

Non-violent struggle is just as complex
as military warfare,

if not more.

Its participants must be well trained

and have clear objectives,

and its leaders must have a strategy
of how to achieve those objectives.

The technique of war has been developed
over thousands of years,

with massive resources

and some of our best minds
dedicated to understanding

and improving how it works.

Meanwhile,

non-violent struggle is rarely
systematically studied,

and even though the number is growing,

there are still only a few dozen people
in the world who are teaching it.

This is dangerous

because we now know

that our old approaches of dealing
with conflict are not adequate

for the new challenges that we're facing.

The US government recently admitted

that it's in a "stalemate"
in its war against ISIS.

But what most people don't know

is that people have stood up to ISIS
using non-violent action.

When ISIS captured Mosul in June 2014,

they announced that they were putting
in place a new public school curriculum

based on their own extremist idealogy.

But on the first day of school,

not a single child showed up.

Parents simply refused to send them.

And they told journalists

they would rather
homeschool their children

than to have them brainwashed.

This is an example
of just one act of defiance

in just one city.

But what if it was coordinated

with the dozens of other acts
of non-violent resistance

that have taken place against ISIS?

What if the parents' boycott
was part of a larger strategy

to identify and cut off the resources
that ISIS needs to function?

The skilled labor needed to produce food;

the engineers needed
to extract and refine oil;

the media infrastructure
and communication networks

and transportation systems,

and the local businesses
that ISIS relies on.

It may be difficult

to imagine defeating ISIS
with action that is non-violent,

but it's time that we challenge
the way we think about conflict

and the choices we have in facing it.

Here's an idea worth spreading:

let's learn more about where
non-violent action has worked

and how we can make it more powerful,

just like we do with other
systems and technologies

that are constantly being refined
to better meet human needs.

It may be that we can
improve non-violent action

to a point where it is increasingly
used in place of war.

Violence as a tool of conflict
could then be abandoned

in the same way that bows and arrows were

because we have replaced them
with weapons that more effective.

With human innovation,

we can make non-violent
struggle more powerful

than the newest and latest
technologies of war.

The greatest hope for humanity
lies not in condemning violence

but in making violence obsolete.

Thank you.

(Applause)