by War Resisters’ International

Editor’s preface: The following article comprises the WRI’s founding statement of purpose (1922), with important revisions in 1935 and 1937. This posting also inaugurates our most ambitious project thus far. In conjunction with WRI, London, we have started to undertake the research of the enormous WRI archive held in Amsterdam by the International Institute of Social History (IISG). The archive occupies 63.3 meters of IISG shelf space, with spill over material in approximately 40 other archives at IISG, and with material at the Peace Palace in The Hague. The purpose of our project will not be, of course, to post anything or everything, but rather to make a selection of material that bears on the influence of nonviolence on the early 20^th century peace movements, and vice versa, especially the period c. 1910-1950, that is, from the years leading up to WWI, to the aftermath of WWII. Wherever possible, we shall also be providing our own pdf scans of the original material, in order to make the material more accessible to scholars. The pdf links will be noted at the ends of sections, or the ends of articles. Acknowledgments are at the end. JG

WRI broken rifle logo; courtesy wri-irg.org

Statement One (1921): War Resisters International. What it Is and What it Advocates

In many countries there are organisations of men and women who are pledged to refuse all war service. They are affiliated to an International Secretariat,  Paco [Esperanto for peace. Ed], Bilthoven, Holland. The basis of the international movement is simple but uncompromising. Members of the affiliated bodies are required to agree to this affirmation: “War is a crime against Humanity. I have therefore decided to support no kind of war, and to strive to remove all causes of war.”

War is a crime against Humanity.

Holding these views War Resisters welcome the proposal of a General Strike whenever war is threatened. They urge that the Trade Unions should agree to declare a strike as soon as their Governments order mobilisation of troops, and that the strike should be continued until the order has been withdrawn and other steps taken to settle the dispute.

They consider that the General Strike proposal should not be left as a vague idea. The organisation ought immediately to be prepared and the necessary finances raised. They propose that commissions should be appointed in all countries for this purpose, and that they should act in conjunction with the International Bureau of the Trade Union Conference.

At the same time the Resisters do not think that resistance to war should depend upon the decisions of National and International executives. If the resistance is to be effective it must come from the impulse of the rank and file. They therefore urge that propaganda should be conducted to make the members of the Trade Union Movement understand their individual responsibility. They wish to make the workers realise that to take any part in war or preparations for war is a denial of their international solidarity. They therefore urge individual refusal of all war service and of the manufacture of war materials. Finally, the War Resisters propose that Commissions should be set up in each country to facilitate the transformation of war industries into productive industries, so that disarmament may be brought about as quickly as possible without distress being occasioned among the workers.

Reference: IISG/WRI Archive Box 1: Folder 1.
For a searchable pdf file of the original please click here.

Statement Two: Revision of Digwell Park (UK) Conference, July 1934

This Conference of the War Resisters’ International, having carefully considered the growing power of fascism and dictatorship, the increasing terrorism in many countries and the danger of another world war springing from the armaments race, rejects the principle of dictatorship and declares its unshaken confidence in the ability of the peoples of each nation to govern themselves through their own appointed representatives without the suppression of liberty or the resort to violent means, and pledges those it represents to work for the establishment of such a new order in Society that class distinction shall become unknown, poverty shall disappear and unemployment shall cease to be the auxiliary of industry…

It further declares its belief in the essential unity of all peoples of whatever race, colour or creed. It denounces all forces which make for their division, exploitation and enmity, and especially the evils of armaments, militarism and war; and again pledges those whom it represents to work, according to their opportunities, unceasingly for a new relationship between nations, based on fraternity instead of force, and service instead of subjection, and recognising the danger of war under existing conditions, re-affirms the determination of its members to refuse military and war service under all circumstances and whatever the consequences.

Reference: IISG/WRI Archive Box 1: Folder 4, Subfolder 3; Peace Year Book. January 1935; pp. 179-80.
For a searchable pdf file of the original please click here.

Statement Three: Revision of Copenhagen Conference, July 1937

We reaffirm our belief in our Declaration and in the Statement of Principles of the International. We affirm again that the right way to oppose tyranny is not to kill the tyrant, but to refuse to cooperate with him in his wrongdoing. Not only will we refuse to take up arms or to assist in the preparation for armed violence, but we dedicate ourselves anew to strive for the removal of economic and political barriers which make life intolerable for so many peoples; and to work for social justice and the abolition of all class distinctions, preparing ourselves to make whatever sacrifices are necessary for the establishment of a new order of society and more just relationships between nations.

Reference: IISG/WRI Archive Box 1: Folder 4, Subfolder 3; Peace Year Book. January 1938; pp. 189-90.
For a searchable pdf file of the original please click here.

Statement Four: Major Revision in Brochure of 1937

The Declaration adopted at the first meeting of the International in 1921, and confirmed at each successive Conference since, is: “War is a crime against humanity. We therefore are determined not to support any kind of war and to strive for the removal of all causes of war.” To this Declaration each member subscribes.

A very remarkable Statement of Principles was drawn up at the first meeting fifteen years ago, and finally adopted at the first International Conference in 1925. Were this statement re-written to-day—1937—reference might be made to war to defend democracy or war for an ideal, but our Statement of Principles leaves us in no doubt. The War Resisters’ International, while often impelled to sympathise with one side in a conflict more than with the other, recognises that the resort to armed violence, or any form of warfare, is damaging most of all to the “good cause.”

 “War is a crime against humanity. We therefore are determined not to support any kind of war and to strive for the removal of all causes of war.”

Statement of Principle: War is a Crime against Humanity

War is a crime against life, and uses human personalities for political and economic ends.

We, therefore, actuated by an intense love for mankind, are determined not to support, either directly by service of any kind in the army, navy, or air forces, or indirectly by making or consciously handling munitions or other war material, subscribing to war loans or using our labour for the purpose of setting others free for war service, any kind of war, aggressive or defensive, remembering that modern wars are invariably alleged by governments to be defensive.

Wars would seem to fall under four headings:

(1) Wars to defend the State to which we nominally belong and wherein our home is situated. To refuse to take up arms for this end is difficult:

a. Because the State will use all its coercive powers to make us do so.
b. Because our inborn love for home has been deliberately identified with love of the State in which it is situated.

(2) Wars to preserve the existing order of society with its security for the privileged few. That we would never take up arms for this purpose goes without saying.

(3) Wars on behalf of the oppressed proletariat, whether for its liberation or defence. To refuse to take up arms for this purpose is most difficult:

a. Because the proletarian regime, and, even more, the enraged masses, in time of revolution would regard as a traitor anyone who refused to support the New Order by force.
b. Because our instinctive love for the suffering and the oppressed would tempt us to use violence on their behalf.

(4) Wars organised under the auspices of the League of Nations in the name of Sanctions to defend the Covenant or to maintain Collective Security against a so-called Aggressor State.

However, we are convinced that violence cannot really preserve order, defend our home, liberate the proletariat or give security to any nation. In fact, experience has shown that in all wars, order, security and liberty disappear, and that, so far from benefiting by them, the proletariat always suffers most. We hold, however, that consistent pacifists have no right to take up a merely negative position, but must recognise and strive for the removal of all the causes of war.

We recognise as causes of war not only the instinct of egoism and greed, which is found in every human heart, but also all agencies which create hatred and antagonism between groups of people. Among such, we would regard the following as the more important today:

1. Differences between races, leading by artificial aggravation to envy and hatred.
2. Differences between religions, leading to mutual intolerance and contempt.
3. Differences between the classes, the possessing and the non-possessing, leading to civil war, which will continue so long as the present system of production exists, and private profit rather than social need is the outstanding motive of society.
4. Differences between nations, due largely to the present system of production, leading to world wars and such economic chaos as we see today, which eventualities, we are convinced, could be prevented by the adoption of a system of world economy which had for its end the well-being of the entire human race.
5. Finally, we see an important cause of war in the prevalent misconception of the State. The State exists for man, not man for the State. The recognition of the sanctity of human personality must become the basic principle of human society. Furthermore, the State is not a sovereign self-contained entity, as every nation is a part of the great family of mankind. We feel, therefore, that consistent pacifists have no right to take up a merely negative position, but must devote themselves to abolishing classes, barriers between the peoples, and to creating a worldwide brotherhood founded on mutual service.

Reference: IISG/WRI Archive Box 1: Folder 3.
For a searchable pdf file of the original please click here.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We are grateful to the IISG for their cooperation, and especially to Christine Schweitzer and WRI for permission.