Passive resistance can be so organized as to become more troublesome than armed rebellion.
The Times of London, 1861
The full story of unarmed daring has yet to be written.1 Here I do not try to fill that gap, for that would require a vast library rather than a short chapter. Instead, I briefly sketch some of the early, and largely unknown, instances of successful nonviolent action.
Perhaps the earliest recorded example of nonviolent resistance occurred in Egypt about three thousand five hundred years ago. The Pharaoh ordered the execution of all Hebrew baby boys. In response, the Hebrew midwives chose civil disobedience, refusing to obey the ruler’s command.2
Two Examples from the First Century
In AD 26, Pontius Pilate, the new Roman governor of Judea, outraged the Jews by bringing into Jerusalem military standards emblazoned with the emperor’s image. Since the military standards with Caesar’s image violated Jewish teaching, the religious leaders begged Pilate to remove the ensigns from the holy city. What happened is best told by the first-century Jewish historian Josephus:
Hastening after Pilate to Caesarea, the Jews implored him to remove the standards from Jerusalem and to uphold the laws of their ancestors. When Pilate refused, they fell prostrate around his house and for five whole days and nights remained motionless in that position. On the ensuing day Pilate took his tribunal in the great stadium, and summoning the multitude, with apparent intention of answering them, gave the arranged signal to his armed soldiers to surround the Jews. Finding themselves in a ring of troops, three deep, the Jews were struck dumb at this unexpected sight. Pilate, after threatening to cut them down, if they refused to admit Caesar’s images, signaled to the soldiers to draw their swords. Thereupon the Jews, as by concerted action, flung themselves in a body on the ground, extended their necks, and exclaimed that they were ready rather to die than to transgress the law. Overcome with astonishment at such intense religious zeal, Pilate gave orders for the immediate removal of the standards from Jerusalem.3
Nonviolent intervention worked.
A few years later, the Jews won an even more striking nonviolent victory. Caligula was the first Roman emperor to require that his subjects worship him as a god during his lifetime. In AD 39, Caligula sent Petronius to Jerusalem with three legions of soldiers to install his statue in the temple in Jerusalem. Outraged, the Jews organized a primitive version of a nationwide strike. Refusing to plant crops, tens of thousands of Jews took part in a “sit-in” in front of the residence of Petronius, the Roman legate. For forty days they protested nonviolently. Jewish leaders summoned for private persuasion remained firmly united with their people. They would all rather die, they insisted, than permit such a desecration of their temple.
This courage and commitment so impressed Petronius that he decided to risk his life and ask the emperor to change his mind. Caligula was furious. He sent a messenger commanding Petronius to commit suicide. Very soon after dispatching this messenger, however, Caligula himself was murdered. Fortunately, strong winds delayed the emperor’s messenger, who arrived with the fatal letter twenty-seven days after Petronius had learned that Caligula was dead.4
Nonviolent direct action had succeeded again.
Attila and the Pope
In the middle of the fifth century, the conquering Attila marched to the very gates of the Eternal City. Having swept through central and eastern Europe in a bloody campaign, Attila hungered for the ultimate prize, Rome. His reputation preceded him. Terrified Romans believed that “the grass never grew on the spot where his horse had trod.”5 Facing this powerful warrior stood a demoralized Roman army and a daring Roman bishop.
Some stories portray Pope Leo I riding a mule, leading a small group toward Attila’s advancing army. Armed only with a crucifix and a papal crown, the brave Leo directs his men in song as they advance. Finally, they face the enemy—their backs to the Roman wall, their exposed fronts to the “barbarians.” Now the incredible happens. Attila, alarmed and confused, turns tail and runs—never to be seen again!6 Nonviolent peacekeeping at its pristine best? Perhaps, although many of the details likely are legendary.
But modern historians do believe that Leo the Great, accompanied by a Roman senator and other official ambassadors, did confront the invading Hun. Whether the negotiators were unarmed, singing, and riding mules is open to doubt. What is certain is the success of the mission. According to Edward Gibbon, in his classic work on the Roman Empire, “The pressing eloquence of Leo, his majestic aspect and sacerdotal robes, excited the veneration of Attila for the Spiritual father of the Christians.”7 The two parties managed to hammer out an acceptable treaty. The invading army withdrew.8 Leo the Great’s willingness to intervene directly and face a brutal warrior with overwhelming military might probably saved Rome from destruction.
Neglected History
Over the intervening centuries, there were undoubtedly examples of nonviolent action. Unfortunately, that history has attracted fewer historians than have the bloody battles of the Charlemagnes and Napoleons. But one should not assume from the relative silence of the history books that these centuries were free from any form of nonviolent resistance.
The American Revolution offers a striking illustration of this historical oversight. Almost every American knows about General George Washington and his military victories in the War of Independence. Only a very few realize how successful nonviolent resistance to British tyranny had been even before a shot had been fired. But scholarly study has demonstrated that by 1775 nine of the American colonies had already won de facto independence by nonviolent means.9
The nonviolent struggle in Hungary in the latter part of the nineteenth century is another exciting, yet relatively unknown, chapter in the emerging history of nonviolent action. Between 1850 and 1867, Hungarians resisted Austrian imperialism nonviolently and eventually succeeded without violence after armed revolt had failed miserably. In 1849, Austria crushed a popular, violent Hungarian rebellion against Austrian domination. The next year, however, a prominent lawyer, Ferenc Deàk, led the whole country into nonviolent resistance. Church leaders disobeyed Austrian orders. People refused to pay Austrian taxes, boycotted Austrian goods, and ostracized Austrian troops. So successful was the nonviolent resistance that The Times of London declared in an editorial on August 24, 1861, “Passive resistance can be so organized as to become more troublesome than armed rebellion.”10 In 1866 and 1867, Austria agreed to reopen the Hungarian parliament and restore the constitution.11
Far away in the Andes Mountains, another nonviolent victory occurred in the nineteenth century. In his book Warriors of Peace, Lanza del Vasto describes the incident in this way:
When relations between Argentina and Chile deteriorated, the two armies marched toward each other through the high passes in the Andes. But on each side, a bishop went ahead of the troops. The bishops met and exchanged the kiss of peace in the sight of the soldiers. And instead of fighting, they sealed a pact of alliance and perpetual friendship between the two nations. A statue of Christ, His hand raised in blessing, stands on the mountain to commemorate this victimless victory.12
By courageously placing themselves between two opposing armies, these peacekeeping bishops doubtless averted bloodshed.
A Growing Vision
Dr. Gene Sharp, longtime researcher at Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs and founder of the Albert Einstein Institute, has pointed out that the twentieth century witnessed an astonishing increase in the use of nonviolence.13 Some of the key figures are household names around the world: America’s Martin Luther King Jr., India’s Mahatma Gandhi, Poland’s Lech Walesa, the Philippines’ Cory Aquino. Many more are less familiar. But all have contributed significantly to a growing awareness of nonviolent alternatives.
A Brazilian soldier, Colonel Rondon, is one of the less well-known heroes. By the early 1900s, the Chavante tribe was violently resisting its Brazilian oppressors. The hatred and brutality were mutual. But Colonel (later General) Cândido Rondon, an officer in Brazil’s army, determined to deal with the Chavante people in a radically new, nonviolent way. Rejecting the “Shoot the Indians on sight!” policy of the past, Rondon instructed his men, “Die if you must, but never kill an Indian.”14
Success did not come overnight. Members of Rondon’s peacekeeping force were wounded, some of them severely. Yet the “Indian Protective Service” organized by Rondon lived up to its name. Finally, in 1946, the Brazilian government signed a treaty with the Chavante people. Rondon’s protective service had taken no Chavante lives since its founding some forty years earlier.15 The treaty permitted the construction of a communication system through the Chavantes’ jungle home, over which Rondon telegraphed a friend, “This is a victory of patience, suffering and love.”16
While Rondon experimented with peacekeeping in the field, philosophers expounded it in the public forum. In 1910, the renowned philosopher William James published “The Moral Equivalent of War.” In this article he proposed the conscription of young people for a war against “nature” and for social welfare.17 James had little time for idealistic visions; he suggested,
Pacifists ought to enter more deeply into the aesthetical and ethical point of view of their opponents. So long as antimilitarists propose no substitute for war’s disciplinary function, no moral equivalent of war . . . so long they fail to realize the full inwardness of the situation. And as a rule they do fail. The duties, penalties, and sanctions pictured in the utopias they paint are all too weak and tame to touch the military-minded.18
To be sure, James was not advocating a new “peace army.” He simply saw his plan as having tremendous social value. Yet many today view James’s essay as the antecedent of the idea of the modern peacekeeping force.19
Developments between the Two Great Wars
Not only in India (see chap. 2) but in other parts of the world as well, nonviolence was discussed and tested in the 1920s and 1930s.
In 1920, the Germans used nonviolence successfully to defeat a coup d’état. On March 13, 1920, right-wing troops seized Berlin, the capital of Germany, and declared a new government. Spontaneously, tens of thousands of Berliners began a strike. The next day, a ringing call for a general strike echoed throughout Germany:
The strongest resistance is required. No enterprise must work as long as the military dictatorship reigns. Therefore, stop working! Strike! Strangle the reactionary clique! Fight by all means to uphold the Republic. Put all mutual discords aside. There is only one way to prevent Wilhelm II from returning: The whole economy must be paralyzed! No hand must move! No proletarian must help the military dictatorship. The total general strike must be carried through!20
Even though some workers were shot, almost everyone went on strike. The bureaucracy refused to run the government. Within four days, the leader (Wolfgang Kapp) fled to Sweden, and the rebellion collapsed. Even though the police and army had failed to resist the coup, even though the coup succeeded and the rebels seized the machinery of government, they were unable to govern. Why? Because the people would not obey. Massive nonviolent resistance had defeated armed soldiers.21
In the 1930s, James’s idea of action that would be the moral equivalent of war took one small step toward reality. When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, the League of Nations demonstrated its weakness by doing almost nothing. Even when the Chinese launched a total boycott of Japanese goods and Japan responded with brutal repression, the League of Nations failed to respond. At this juncture an amazing letter appeared in the London Daily Express. Signed by three well-known church people, the letter urged, “Men and women who believe it to be their duty should volunteer to place themselves unarmed between the combatants [in China]. . . . We have written the League of Nations offering ourselves for service in such a Peace Army.”22 The League of Nations secretary, General Eric Drummond, responded quickly, noting that the organization’s constitution prohibited consideration of “private” proposals. At the same time, however, he promised to circulate the idea among the press in Geneva.23 Editorials mushroomed worldwide. “The suggestion that such an army might suitably interpose itself between the forces of two peoples at war is both intelligent and apt,” remarked the British newspaper The Guardian.24 Across the ocean, Time magazine scoffed at foolish “Occidentals willing to go to Shanghai and heroically interpose themselves between the fighting Orientals.”25
Back in Britain, however, the proposal gained support. General Frank Percy Crozier, a decorated veteran of the Western Front, volunteered almost immediately.26 Approximately eight hundred others followed, forming an organization called the Peace Army.27 This army, unfortunately, existed mostly on paper and never actually served in Shanghai. Still, a precedent had been set. The proposal for a peace army had drawn marked attention, and fire, from around the world.
Battling Hitler Nonviolently
Brave appeals for a nonviolent peace army did not, however, prevent the planet from slipping into the deadliest world war in human history. But even in those years, indeed precisely in many of the countries under the brutal thumb of Adolf Hitler, nonviolent resistance took place, and often it succeeded.28
Hitler easily conquered Norway and established Vidkun Quisling as his puppet in 1940.29 But when Quisling tried to establish fascist institutions, massive nonviolent civil disobedience erupted. Teachers risked their lives, refusing to teach fascist propaganda. Labor unions struck and sabotaged machinery, even though their leaders were imprisoned and killed. Almost all the Lutheran clergy resigned from the state church, which Quisling tried to control. When the Gestapo demanded that the Catholic archbishop withdraw his signature from a letter supporting the defiant Lutheran clergy, he replied, “You can take my head, but not my signature.”30 Quisling failed in his attempt to impose fascism through the schools and church. Norwegians succeeded in saving more than half of the country’s Jews.
Resistance was even more successful in this regard in Denmark, Finland, and Bulgaria.31 A secret tip-off concerning the impending arrest of Danish Jews enabled the Danes to hide and then smuggle 93 percent of the Danish Jews to neutral Sweden. Although allied with Germany, Finland refused to deport its Jews, even when Hitler’s chief of security police threatened to cut off Finland’s food supply. “We would rather perish together with the Jews,” Finland’s foreign minister told the astonished Heinrich Himmler.32
Also a German ally, Bulgaria initially passed anti-Jewish legislation. But massive resistance to anti-Jewish measures emerged at every level of society, from peasant to priest. The metropolitan of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church hid the chief rabbi in his home. Another Orthodox bishop told the Bulgarian king that he would lead a massive campaign of civil disobedience against deportation, “including personally lying down on the railroad tracks before the deportation trains.”33 Not one of the fifty thousand Bulgarian Jews fell into Hitler’s hands.
Overthrowing Dictators
Nonviolence toppled two dictators in Central America in 1944.
General Maximiliano Martínez seized power in El Salvador in 1931.34 The next year, he savagely crushed a peasant revolt, killing thousands. For thirteen years, the tyrannical autocrat ruled. In early 1944, he put down a revolt, torturing some and killing others. In response, university students spread the idea of a nonviolent general strike. Within two weeks, doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, shopkeepers, and railway workers left their posts. The economy ground to a halt. After a short period, Martínez resigned and fled to Guatemala, where he explained his resignation:
In the first few days of April, I defeated the seditionaries with arms, but recently they provoked a strike. Then I no longer wanted to fight. Against whom was I going to fire? Against children and against youths . . . ? Women also were enlisted in the movement and in this way I no longer had an objective at which to fire.35
General Jorge Ubico had ruled Guatemala with an iron fist since 1931. Unfortunately for him, when El Salvador’s dictator fled to Guatemala in May 1944, he brought along a contagious example of nonviolent resistance. The widespread opposition to Ubico’s tyranny took heart. First students, then schoolteachers went on strike. When cavalry charged a silent procession of women and killed a schoolteacher, a total strike occurred in the capital, Guatemala City. Workers stopped. Businesses and offices closed. The streets were deserted. On July 1, 1944, Ubico gave up.36
Nor are the victories in El Salvador and Guatemala isolated examples. Nonviolent general strikes have overthrown at least seven Latin American dictators in the twentieth century.37 When ruthless military dictators “disappeared” as many as thirty thousand people in Argentina in the 1970s, a movement of mothers (Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo) dared to protest and march in peaceful demonstrations that eventually contributed to the collapse of the dictatorship.38
A Canoe Blockade of American Ports
On July 14, 1971, three kayaks, three canoes, and a rubber raft blocked the path of a huge Pakistani freighter steaming in to load arms at the port of Baltimore.39 The next day, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives voted to withhold all military and economic aid from Pakistan. A dramatic form of nonviolent intervention had played its part.
The Bengalis of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) had chafed under the domination of West Pakistan. In December 1970, the Awami League, which championed greater autonomy for East Pakistan, won a clear electoral victory. In response, the Pakistani dictator unleashed his army on East Pakistan on March 25, 1971. By the time the war ended, a million Bengalis had been killed, twenty-five thousand women had been raped, and nine million refugees had fled to India.40
As the Pakistani army continued to rampage through Bengal, the US government denied that it was aiding Pakistan. But it was. The United States was shipping large amounts of war material to Pakistan from American ports on the East Coast.
In Blockade, an exciting book that reads like a first-rate novel, Richard Taylor describes the daring adventure of the “nonviolent fleet” that helped stop this flow of arms. Taylor and other Philadelphia Quakers decided to dramatize the US shipment of arms by paddling their canoes in front of the steamship Padma as it came into the Baltimore harbor to load arms for Pakistan. Obviously, their lives were at risk. As it turned out, they were plucked out of the water by the US Coast Guard, which then escorted the Padma to dock. But the news coverage of their action contributed to the vote by the House Foreign Affairs Committee the next day. And the next week, the blockaders flew to Miami and persuaded the longshoremen there not to load any more arms destined for Pakistan.
The action then moved to Philadelphia. More canoes blockaded another Pakistani ship, the Al Ahmadi, as the longshoremen watched. The blockaders’ daring persuaded the dockworkers to refuse to load the ship, thus shutting the port of Philadelphia to all Pakistani ships, regardless of their cargo.
Finally, in early November, the Nixon administration ended all shipment of arms to Pakistan. Obviously, many factors led to that decision. But the activity of the “nonviolent fleet” clearly played a part.
This chapter has skipped quickly over a long history of daring experimentation with alternatives to war. We explored only a few of the stories of nonviolent resistance.
We could have looked at John Adams’s insistence, after his extremely dangerous nonviolent struggle to contain the fighting at Wounded Knee (1973), that “at times a person has to fight for nonviolence.”41 We could have examined the Alagamar Land Struggle in Brazil (late 1970s) and Archbishop Dom Helder Camara’s chasing of the landlord’s cattle off the peasants’ fields.42 We might have noted the massacre that never occurred in Rio de Janeiro in 1968 because “a dozen priests offered themselves as the first victims.”43 We could have explored the Philadelphia Quakers’ nonviolent police force at the Black Panthers Convention in 1970.44 And we could have reviewed the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1978–79 by overwhelmingly nonviolent methods after violent revolution had failed earlier in the decade.45
Even this brief historical sketch demonstrates beyond dispute not only that nonviolent direct action exists but also that it often succeeds. That is an irrefutable part of the historical record. The many stories in subsequent chapters will underline that fact in powerful ways.
1. Among the best are Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, 3 vols. (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1973); Sharp, Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential (Boston: Porter Sargent, 2005); Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall, A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict (New York: Palgrave, 2000); Stephen Zunes, Lester R. Kurtz, and Sarah Beth Asher, eds., Nonviolent Social Movements: A Geographical Perspective (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999); Kurt Schock, Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005); David Cortright, Gandhi and Beyond: Nonviolence for a New Political Age, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2010); James C. Juhnke and Carol M. Hunter, The Missing Peace: The Search for Nonviolent Alternatives in United States History (Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2001).
2. Exodus 1:15–2:10. Zunes, Kurtz, and Asher suggest that this incident may be the earliest recorded instance of nonviolent action (Nonviolent Social Movements, 3).
3. Josephus, Jewish War 2.171–74 (Josephus: The Jewish War and Other Selections, ed. Moses I. Finley, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus [Union Square, NY: Twayne, 1965], 201–2).
4. This story is told in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.257–309; Jewish War 2.184–203.
5. Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3 vols. (New York: Random House, 1954), 2:289.
6. Lanza del Vasto, Warriors of Peace: Writings on the Technique of Nonviolence, ed. Michel Random, trans. Jean Sidgwick (New York: Knopf, 1974), 197.
7. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 2:293. See also T. Walter Wallbank and Alastair Taylor, Civilization Past and Present, 7th ed., 3 vols. (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1976), 1:215.
8. Attila was discovered dead in his bed soon after this incident. He had expired during one of his many honeymoon celebrations.
9. Walter H. Conser Jr. et al., eds., Resistance, Politics, and the American Struggle for Independence, 1765–1775 (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1986). See also Juhnke and Hunter, Missing Peace, 35–52.
10. Quoted in William Robert Miller, Nonviolence: A Christian Interpretation (New York: Association Press, 1964), 239.
11. For the story, see Miller, Nonviolence, 230–43, and the short summary in Ronald J. Sider and Richard K. Taylor, Nuclear Holocaust and Christian Hope: A Book for Christian Peacemakers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity; New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 235.
12. Del Vasto, Warriors of Peace, 202.
13. Sharp, Politics of Nonviolent Action, 1:98.
14. See Charles C. Walker, A World Peace Guard: An Unarmed Agency for Peacekeeping (New Delhi: Academy of Gandhian Studies Hyderabad, 1981), 65; Allan A. Hunter, Courage in Both Hands (New York: Ballantine Books, 1962), 90.
15. Walker, World Peace Guard, 65.
16. Quoted in Hunter, Courage, 92.
17. See the analysis in Arthur Weinberg, ed., Instead of Violence: Writings by the Great Advocates of Peace and Nonviolence throughout History (New York: Beacon, 1963), 303.
18. William James, “The Moral Equivalent of War,” in William James, The Moral Equivalent of War, and Other Essays, ed. John K. Roth (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 10.
19. Walker, World Peace Guard, 65–66.
20. Quoted in Anders Boserup and Andrew Mack, War without Weapons: Non-Violence in National Defence (New York: Schocken Books, 1975), 123–24.
21. Sharp, Politics of Nonviolent Action, 1:79–81.
22. Quoted in Gene Keyes, “Peacekeeping by Unarmed Buffer Forces: Precedents and Proposals,” in Peace & Change 5, nos. 2–3 (1978): 3–4.
23. Walker, World Peace Guard, 67.
24. Quoted in Keyes, “Peacekeeping,” 4.
25. Quoted in ibid.
26. A general turned pacifist, Crozier greatly admired Gandhi and saw the Peace Army as an outgrowth of Gandhian principles.
27. Keyes, “Peacekeeping,” 4.
28. See Ackerman and DuVall, Force More Powerful, chap. 5; Sharp, Waging Nonviolent Struggle, chaps. 9–10.
29. For a summary and the bibliographical sources, see Sider and Taylor, Nuclear Holocaust, 238–41. See also Paul Wehr, “Nonviolent Resistance to Nazism: Norway, 1940–45,” Peace & Change 10, nos. 3–4 (1984): 77–95; Wehr, Conflict Regulation (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979), 69–100, which has a good study of the Norwegian communications network.
30. Quoted in Eivine Berggrar, “Experiences of the Norwegian Church in the War,” The Lutheran World Review 1, no. 1 (1948): 51.
31. For the sources, see Sider and Taylor, Nuclear Holocaust, 242–46.
32. Quoted in Nora Levin, The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry, 1933–1945 (New York: Schocken Books, 1973), 401.
33. Quoted in Frederick B. Charry, The Bulgarian Jews and the Final Solution, 1940–1944 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1972), 90.
34. For the story, see Patricia Parkman, “Insurrection without Arms: The General Strike in El Salvador, 1944” (PhD diss., Temple University, 1980); Ackerman and DuVall, Force More Powerful, chap. 6.
35. Parkman, “Insurrection,” 169.
36. See Sharp, Politics of Nonviolent Action, 1:90–93; Sharp, Waging Nonviolent Struggle, chap. 11.
37. See Elizabeth Campuzano et al., Resistance in Latin America: The Pentagon, the Oligarchy and Nonviolent Action (Philadelphia: American Friends Service Committee, 1970).
38. Ackerman and DuVall, Force More Powerful, 267–78; Pam McAllister, “You Can’t Kill the Spirit: Women and Nonviolent Action,” in Zunes, Kurtz, and Asher, Nonviolent Social Movements, 26–29.
39. For this story, see Richard K. Taylor, Blockade: A Guide to Non-Violent Intervention (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1977).
40. Ibid., xiii.
41. John P. Adams, At the Heart of the Whirlwind (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 119.
42. See Hildegard Goss-Mayr, “Alagamar: Nonviolent Land Struggle,” IFOR Report, July 1980, 15–16.
43. Penny Lernoux, Cry of the People: The Struggle for Human Rights in Latin America—The Catholic Church in Conflict with U.S. Policy (New York: Penguin Books, 1982), 313–14.
44. See Lyle Tatum, “Friendly Presence,” in Liberation without Violence: A Third-Party Approach, ed. A. Paul Hare and Herbert H. Blumberg (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1977), 92–101.
45. See Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), chap. 4, esp. 110–18.