refusniks

With the news that the 200th British soldier has died in Afghanistan, in a war in which British, American, Canadian and Afghan lives have and are being needlessly lost, history throws up numerous inspiring examples of those who’ve found it within themselves to refuse to sacrifice their lives in wars driven by the economic interests of their respective governments and the class they represent, and not, as ‘they’ tell us, in order to secure our freedom, their freedom, or anybody else’s freedom for that matter.

The most recent example is that of Britain's Lance Corporal Joe Glenton. Up until recently he was just another of the faceless tens of thousands of serving soldiers in Her Majesty’s armed forces. Now he is known throughout the world as a result of his refusal to return to Afghanistan to serve a second tour of duty and instead challenge his so-called military superiors, the British Government, and the ent ire legal and moral basis of the war in court.

Regardless of the outcome of the court martial process, Glenton, a recent recruit to the ranks of the Stop the War Coalition, has already earned himself a place in history.

And what a history it is. For even the most cursory research throws up a legacy of rich and, it has to be said, largely suppressed stories of those who defied their governments and refused to fight.

During the 1846-8 Mexican-American war, a war undertaken by the US to expropriate two-thirds of what was then Mexico, a regiment of poor Irish immigrants deserted, went over to the Mexican side, and fought with courage and distinction against an invading army which, in its atrocities against the local population, reminded them of the oppression they and their own people had experienced back in Ireland at the hands of the British.

Led by John Riley from Co Galway, they formed themselves into the St Patrick’s Battalion - or San Patricios in Spanish.

In a series of letters home, Riley wrote of the Mexican people: “Be not deceived by a nation that is at war with Mexico, for a friendlier and more hospitable people than the Mexicans there exists not on the face of the earth.”

After the Mexicans were finally defeated, Riley and those of his men who’d survived were court-martialled. Half were executed, the other half had their faces branded with the letter ‘D’ for deserter and returned to the poverty and obscurity from whence they’d come, their existence purged from every official US history of the war.

Today, however, their courage is remembered both in Mexico and in Ireland. In the chamber of Mexico’s House of Representatives, the battalion’s name is written in gold, and the street in front of the Irish School in Monterey, where the battalion fought its first battle on the side of the Mexicans, is named Batallon de San Patricio (Battalion of Saint Patrick). In addition, a small ceremony is observed each year in Riley’s home town of Clifden, County Galway, during which the Mexican flag is raised.

Moving on, at the beginning of the 20th century, during another US expansionist war, this time to bring under its dominion the Philippines, many black soldiers established a rapport with the rebels. The racism they were forced to endure at home and in the military was redolent of the racism used to dehumanise the Filipinos, who fought valiantly against the occupation of their islands.

In fact, the rebels produced posters specifically addressed to black soldiers in the US forces, reminding them of lynchings taking place against their people back home and asking them not to serve the white imperialist against other people of colour.

A serving black soldier named William Fulbright wrote from Manila to the editor of a US newspaper: “This struggle on the islands has been naught but a gigantic scheme of robbery and oppression.”

When the First World War arrived men throughout the belligerent European powers volunteered in their thousands for what turned out to be a human abattoir. This wasn’t the case in the United States, however, despite President Woodrow Wilson’s stirring words about “a war to end all wars” and making “the world safe for democracy.”

A million men were required, yet in the first six weeks after the US declared war in April 1917 only 73,000 volunteered. This lack of response resulted in a draft being introduced.

During the war itself, as the slaughter continued, men on all sides deserted. Around 350 British and Commonwealth troops were shot for desertion, while instances of mutiny among the French troops, some involving entire companies, were punished with mass executions.

On Christmas Day, 1914, British and German troops along a small sector of the Western Front began shouting to one another across no-man’s land. This evolved into the singing of Christmas carols, before some lay down their weapons, emerged from their trenches, and met in no-man’s land. It was a spontaneous rejection of the war and all the propaganda they’d been subjected to back home and throughout their military training, with the purpose of demonising the other side and preparing them to kill and be killed, in recognition of something far stronger and much more powerful – human solidarity.

As such it was quickly stamped out by their military superiors as soon as it came to their attention, for fear that such a contagion of solidarity might spread with disastrous consequences for the war effort.

The First World War began to unravel when the Russian troops refused to continue fighting by 1917. This was followed by Germany’s inability to go on as a result of widespread social unrest at home, driven by the deep privation being endured by the population as a consequence of the Allied blockade, and the failure of the 1918 Spring Offensive. The Russian Revolution in 1917 had resounded throughout Europe like an earthquake, inspiring the masses and striking terror into the hearts of the international ruling class. Ironically, while the Russian troops returned home to make a revolution, the German troops returned home to suppress one, succumbing to a reactionary, nationalist consciousness rather than embracing the internationalism of their Russian counterparts.

In the latter half of the 20th century, the greatest demonstration of mutiny and class consciousness by troops serving in the field came during the Vietnam War, when American soldiers began to refuse to fight in such large numbers that the US military in Vietnam came near to suffering a complete collapse.

Individual examples of dissent abound from that brutal and savage war. Army doctor Captain Howard Levy refused to treat Green Berets at one point, calling them “murderers of women and children.”

Women were also involved. Lieutenant Susan Schnall was court-martialled for attending an anti-war demonstration in uniform and, later, for dropping anti-war leaflets from an aircraft onto navy installations.

As the movement grew, it became more organised. Anti-war newspapers began to appear on military bases. They had titles like About Face, Fed Up, Short Times and Vietnam GI.

This military component to what was a militant and determined anti-war movement proved vital to the ending of the war, as, by its end, military commanders at the Pentagon were facing the real possibility of mass revolt in the ranks if it continued.

Within the armed forces of the state of Israel, a movement has emerged of men and women who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories of Palestine. Known as the refuseniks, 51 of them, including officers, first signed a letter in 2002 in which they refused “to serve beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.”

At time of writing, over 600 soldiers of the IDF and other branches of the Israeli military and society have since signed the letter. Following on from that, in 2003 27 former and reserve pilots of the Israeli Air Force drew up another letter denouncing the occupation. In it, they stated:

“We, veteran and active pilots alike, who served and still serve the state of Israel for long weeks every year, are opposed to carrying out attack orders that are illegal and immoral of the type the state of Israel has been conducting in the territories. We, who were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise, refuse to take part in Air Force attacks on civilian population centers. We, for whom the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force are an inalienable part of ourselves, refuse to continue to harm innocent civilians. These actions are illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society.”

With regard to Iraq, Britain’s Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, a medical officer in the RAF, created a firestorm of controversy in 2005 when he not only refused to deploy to Iraq, but compared Britain’s occupation of the country to the Nazi occupation of France in the Second World War. At his court martial in 2006, Kendall was found guilty on five charges of disobeying orders. He was sentenced to eight months in prison and discharged from the RAF. After the verdict was announced, he said:

“The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a campaign of imperial military conquest and falls into the category of criminal acts. I would have had criminal responsibility vicariously if I had gone to Iraq. I still have two great loves in life - medicine and the RAF. To take the decision that I did caused great sadness, but I had no other choice.”

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada of the US Army joined Kendall-Smith, when in 2006 he also refused to deploy to Iraq. Like his British counterpart, Watada rejected the opportunity to claim conscientious objector status. Instead he focused his defence on the war’s legality under international law. He was the first commissioned officer in the US armed forces to refuse to deploy to Iraq. The legal proceedings surrounding his case ended in a controversial mistrial. Though the army appealed the original mistrial verdict, all charges against Watada were finally dropped when the Obama administration took office.

As part of the speech he made at Veterans for Peace convention in 2006, Watada said: “If I am guilty of any crime, it is that I learned too much and cared too deeply for the meaningless loss of my fellow soldiers and my fellow human beings.

“If I am to be punished, it should be for following the rule of law over the immoral orders of one man. If I am to be punished, it should be for not acting sooner.”

Perhaps the last word should go to Lance Corporal Joe Glenton. In a letter to Gordon Brown, Glenton wrote: “It is my primary concern that the courage and tenacity of my fellow soldiers has become a tool of American foreign policy.

“I believe that when British military personnel submit themselves to the service of the nation and put their bodies into harm’s way, the government that sends them into battle is obliged to ensure that the cause is just and right, i.e. for the protection of life and liberty.

“The war in Afghanistan is not reducing the terrorist risk, far from improving Afghan lives it is bringing death and devastation to their country.

“Britain has no business there. I do not believe that our cause in Afghanistan is just or right. I implore you, sir, to bring our troops home.”