Conscientious objector in USAF: Michael Thurman, United States
Michael Thurman was recognized as a conscientious objector and discharged from the United States Air Force (USAF) on June 10, 2008, after an eight-month process. He enlisted in the air force in 2005, when he was in high school, but when he began his training, he began to doubt his decision, calling into question the war in Iraq and all wars in general. Although he realized that he wouldn’t be directly responsible for air combat missions, Michael would be indirectly helping the war effort. He talked to his supervisor and began the process required to leave the Air Force. He now works in the organization Courage to Resist (www.couragetoresist.org) helping other soldiers who also want to leave the army.
Michael explains that he enlisted in the Air Force during his last year of high school primarily because of his interest in learning about how airplanes worked and his desire to become a pilot. Since his financial situation made it difficult for him to pay to enroll in university, he decided to enlist in the Air Force.
Belonging to the army “is very prestigious within American society. You don’t just become a guardian of order and social stability, you become a protector of the nation, a guardian of the defence of life when you fight ’terrorism.’ This is the image that the army promotes in its campaigns and that leads many young people to want to join the army, in addition to the economic benefits that being a soldier offers. Enlisting in the armed forces is voluntary and the number of people from lower social and economic classes is extremely high. They think this a way out that will improve their lives,” asserts Michael. [Private communication with Civis. Interview conducted on October 26, 2011]. He comments that sometimes the army even enters high schools, and that they hold military training courses to invite young people to participate in military life.
During his army training, he began to call into question his decision to become a soldier. He began to have serious doubts about the war in Iraq and saw how combat in foreign territories left behind pain, victims and violence. Although he wasn’t going to be directly responsible for air combat missions, it became clear that he would be indirectly supporting the war by collaborating with the technical maintenance of the airplanes.
Michael did not understand “how you could talk about democracy and freedom while invading, annihilating and violating other people’s human rights.” [1]. He therefore declared himself to be against any war and decided that he could not continue his career in the army. “I couldn’t belong to an institution where human life doesn’t count, where the right to life no longer is worth anything in itself and begins to be mediated by political and economic objectives.” [2].
Convinced that he did not want to stay in the army, Michael talked to his supervisor. The supervisor told him about the law for conscientious objection to military service in the United States, and Michael began the process immediately. First, he wrote a statement about why he was leaving the army, his reasons for declaring himself a conscientious objector and how his beliefs had changed during his time in the military. After declaring himself a conscientious objector, he was visited by a psychologist “to make sure I wasn’t crazy” and later by a priest to reaffirm and authenticate his moral and ethical beliefs. After these evaluations, he had a hearing with an army investigative official who would decide whether to grant him conscientious objector status. The entire process lasted eight months, during which time he had to work as an office assistant in the institution.
Although in the United States the right to conscientious objection is recognized, leaving military service is not easy: “First of all, because you join the military voluntarily, it’s assumed that enlisting is an intimate act of conscience and that the person has sufficient reasons to join and participate in military life. When you join the army you even sign a contract and agree to belong, to justify and perform the tasks assigned during your service. So declaring yourself an objector afterwards for religious, ethical, moral or political reasons is difficult. You have to demonstrate, explain and justify the reasons and since the final decision on the application is made right in the military base, it’s often rejected. If the convictions or reasons presented are not considered valid, you’ll have to stay in the army, facing restrictions on the positions you hold and stigmatization inside your unit.” [3].
This is one of the reasons why many conscientious objectors have to go underground or even leave the country once they have made their decision: “It isn’t enough for the army that you declare yourself an objector because of your convictions; your decision is subject to whether your convictions are approved or not. This represents a series of violations of the recognition of the right, because it’s very difficult for another soldier to judge or approve your own convictions. My organization, ’Courage to Resist,’ works precisely for the recognition and support of conscientious objectors inside the army, providing political, emotional, legal and material support to all military objectors and denouncing the problems that war causes,” concludes Michael.
Conscientious objection to dictatorship: Francesc Riera, Spain
Another guest was Francesc Riera from Spain. Since age 15, Francesc participated in underground union activities during the time of the Franco dictatorship. At age 21, he was a conscientious objector to mandatory military service. He went underground for 9 months and was arrested several times by the Police and the Civil Guard during public anti-militarism actions. Since 1992, he has been active in Peace Brigades International, both as founder and coordinator of the Colombia project and member of the Guatemala and El Salvador projects. In El Salvador he accompanied unionists, mothers of forcibly disappeared people, internally displaced persons and bishops; in Guatemala he worked with indigenous communities. He currently dedicates himself to agriculture and works as well at a Documentation Centre of the Basque Country, in a project on the social needs of incarcerated people and people facing the criminal justice system.
“Pepe Beunza was the first Spanish conscientious objector who politically and publicly refused to enter the military. Declaring yourself an objector was a synonym for disrespect for authority, disloyalty and social disorder. During and after the Franco dictatorship it was impossible to voice any ideas critical of the army. Introducing a way of refusing the military structure was an act of subversion of the system, and as such had to be judged, repressed and punished. With Pepe Beunza a series of struggles against militarization in the country began, and the foundations were laid for what would later become the insumisión, or disobedience, movement. [4].
During the period of transition to democracy, Spanish society began to call into question the values that had been built up during the dictatorship. “It didn’t make sense to keep up an arms race after a dictatorship that had left behind violence, forced disappearances and intimidations.” [5].
Publicity campaigns began to be carried out against war and the army, rejecting the militarization of society and its values of control, censorship and domination. The Conscientious Objection Movement in Spain began to grow and enjoyed broad support within Spanish society. Francesc explains that “young people in many places in Spain organized mobilization and conciousness-raising actions promoting conscientious objection. These actions were violently broken up by soldiers and the security forces. Many of the conscientious objectors were imprisoned with sentences of five to six years. Nevertheless, from inside the prisons and from outside conscientious objectors continued demonstrating for the recognition of freedoms and the establishment of a true democracy. They demanded the complete abolition of any kind of mandatory service imposed by the State. Other positions like collective action and support for the most vulnerable groups in society increased solidarity and support for conscientious objectors from the rest of society even more.” [Private communication with Civis. Interview conducted on October 27, 2011].
In this way, all actions carried out by the movement had to include a process of educating and informing about conscientious objection, civil disobedience and non-violence. “The recognition of the right to conscientious objection was a long process. A process of resistance and mobilization, in defence of life, freedom and rejection of war. We often remembered a phrase by Mario Benedetti: “We don’t always do what we want, but we have the right to not do what we don’t want.” (from “Hombre preso que mira su hijo,” “Man in Prison who Looks at his Son”). [6].
Conscientious Objection as political struggle: Juan Carlos Obando, Ecuador
Another experience was that of Juan Carlos Obando, member of the Ecuador Conscientious Objection Group (GOCE). In addition to working for conscientious objection, he has supported campaigns to encourage people to think about and study the U.S. military base in Manta, Ecuador. He is currently working and actively participating in Service for Peace and Justice in Ecuador (SERPAJ-E), as coordinator of the youth observatory. The observatory works on public policy and youth issues in the framework of a culture of peace and human rights.
In Ecuador, the conscientious objectors’ movement has worked not only to defend the right to conscientious objection to mandatory military service. “It’s goal is to object to all focal points for violence in Ecuadorian society, whether caused by gender, ethnic, environmental or class conflict. This has led it to carry out educational, political and media work and action to transform these inequalities and problems affecting the broader population.” [7].
With regards to mandatory military service, article 168 of the Constitution of Ecuador declares that military service is obligatory. “Citizens will be assigned to perform civilian service for the community if they invoke conscientious objection based on moral, religious or philosophical reasons. In this case, the article establishes the obligation to perform military service and establishes civilian community service as an alternative to this.” [8].
Article 108 of the Law of Mandatory Military Service, in particular, also deals with the acceptance of conscientious objection with prior justification. The objection will be evaluated by the Director of Recruitment of the Armed Forces, who will decide whether the person is a conscientious objector. Those declared objectors will then have to perform their service in the development units of the Armed Forces.
These articles clearly violate basic principles of the right to conscientious objection – objectors have to demonstrate their objection and depend on whether or not they are accepted. In addition, they are still submitted to the military regime, because they are required to perform their social service in the military.
As a result of this, a lawsuit was filed arguing that military service was unconstitutional, against articles 108 and 88 of the Law of Military Service [9]. According to Juan Carlos, “when the lawsuit was filed, the court ruled in favour of conscientious objectors and these articles were declared unconstitutional. Congress was exhorted to rectify the Law of Military Service.” [10].
A civilian community service law then began to be drafted, and was subsequently presented on October 24, 2001. According to Juan Carlos, this “law sought for conscientious objectors to be able to perform their social service outside of military institutions and to focus their work on community organizations, carrying out citizen participation projects, educational programmes, etc. As part of the law, it was established that those who performed civilian community service would enjoy the same benefits as those who performed military service. In addition, the creation of a National Council of Conscientious Objectors was proposed to receive and process applications for conscientious objector status and to coordinate the civilian service.” [11]. These were the first steps taken toward regulating the right to conscientious objection.
However, it was not until 2008 that conscientious objection to military service was recognized as a fundamental right, through the drafting of a collective proposal. A range of youth organizations and institutions participated in drafting a youth mandate to be proposed in the National Constituent Assembly in 2008.
New articles in the Ecuadorian constitution reflected this effort. One of the approved articles reads, “The right to conscientious objection, which shall not undermine other rights or cause harm to persons or nature. All persons have the right to refuse the use of violence and to refuse to perform military service.” The civilian-military service was also abolished. Furthermore, all members of the Armed Forces or the police forces, if they commit a crime, will be judged by the civilian justice system.
In this framework, conscientious objection is thus defined as a fundamental right contributing to a culture of peace, in which being an objector “is refusing to support any kind of domination, imposition and reproduction of violence. It’s an individual and collective choice that strives for social transformation through freedom, respect for diversity and human rights. Because of all this, it’s a choice for life.” [12].
RSS 2.0