It is difficult to give a panorama of the right to conscientious objection within the available space -- the world is big, and situations are quite different. Conscientious objection in Western Europe for example means something very different from conscientious objection in Eritrea, or South Korea, or Israel, or Russia, or Latin America. And you all know that even within Latin America situations vary, and it is hard to compare Paraguay with its more than 100,000 conscientious objectors with the situation here in Colombia.

What I want to do is to give some general ideas and show some trends, which might help to "set the scene" for this very important conference. We will hear more about human rights aspects, the recognition of the right to conscientious objection, and several country examples later, so my role here is to provide the big picture.

Conscription and conscientious objection

While refusal to take part in war is probably as old as war itself, conscientious objection as a political and philosophical concept became more important with the development of modern warfare and the invention of conscription as a more "effective" means of recruiting. France began the first modern draft on September 5, 1798.

As a response, organized conscientious objection developed, especially after the First World War -- War Resisters' International as the international organization for conscientious objectors was founded in 1921. At that time only two countries -- Denmark and Sweden -- provided any legal recognition of the right to conscientious objection. This number grew significantly, especially after the Second World War, due to emerging movements for the right to conscientious objection, at that time mostly in Western Europe and North America.

What is conscientious objection?

There are probably as many definitions of conscientious objection as there are conscientious objectors, and the political perspective is important. In 1983 the first report to the United Nations on conscientious objection offered the following definition: "By conscience is meant genuine ethical convictions, which may be of religious or humanist inspiration (...). Two major categories of convictions stand out, one that it is wrong under all circumstances to kill (the pacifist objection), and the other that the use of force is justified in some circumstances but not in others, and that therefore it is necessary to object in those other cases (partial objection to military service)"[1].

A similar definition is the basis of many conscientious objection (CO) laws. However, within the international movement of conscientious objectors -- partly organized within War Resisters' International -- the debate is quite different. First of all, it mostly does not focus on the question of conscience -- the objection or refusal is the focus of the debate, and the German term Kriegsdienstverweigerung (war service refusal), or the term insumisión (disobedience), chosen by the Spanish CO movement, reflect better the approach of conscientious objectors.

In 1973, the Italian conscientious objector Pietro Pinna defined conscientious objection in this way: "CO is a focal point of antimilitarist action. By its witness of living adherence to the idea, it operates as a major focus of debate and mobilisation. In the wider revolutionary strategy, CO offers a fundamental indication, i.e. the assumption of responsibility, of autonomy and personal initiative; it serves as point of reference, a paradigm, for the extension of the concept of  conscientious objection' in any other sectors of social life"[2].

Refusal and war resistance include methods other than formal conscientious objection -- there are many ways to take public stands against war and military service. When we talk about refusal, then it is important to include the variety of approaches to refusal: conscientious objection as the public stand, but also draft evasion, desertion, "grey refusal" in form of medical exemptions or postponement of service, and even going into exile. In most countries, these other forms of refusal are much more widely practiced than the open and confrontational conscientious objection. Although there are problems with these other forms, in that they do not openly confront militarism and the state's demand for military service, these other forms are nevertheless important. I will come back to this later.

The recognition of the right to conscientious objection

When War Resisters' International was founded in 1921, only two countries -- Denmark and Sweden -- recognized the right to conscientious objection. Since then, we have come a long way, although as we all know the right to CO is not universally recognized.

Prior to the end of the Cold War in 1990, the right to conscientious objection was established in many Western European countries, most of which at that time maintained a conscription system. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War the right to conscientious objection has been established in most of Eastern Europe -- but not in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union.

Presently, we can see a trend to abolish conscription in Europe -- east and west -- which goes hand in hand with abolishing the right to conscientious objection, as most countries do not recognize this right for professional soldiers. This explains the drop in countries recognizing the right to CO from 2003 to 2006.

As a very rough estimate, we can probably say that the total number of conscientious objectors in those countries that recognize the right to conscientious objection is between 160,000 and 200,000 conscientious objectors annually -- again, the vast majority are in Europe, but about 10% are in Latin America, or more specifically in Paraguay[3]. But the problem with this statistic is that it only counts conscientious objectors who go through channels legally provided by governments. It excludes all those who find other ways to stay true to their beliefs, or who don't need to go through formal procedures because they are not called up for military service -- be it in a country with conscription or without. For example, during the war which tore apart Yugoslavia in 1999 it was estimated that 50,000 conscripts avoided or fled compulsory military service.

Different faces of conscientious objection

Different political and social circumstances require a different strategy. This is true also for the CO movement. I will attempt to give a brief overview, which -- as any attempt to categorize -- has its flaws, but also might help to understand differences and commonalities.

In spite of these different circumstances, CO movements face a number of more or less common challenges. I want to mention just a few.

The role of the right to conscientious objection

This conference is about establishing the right to conscientious objection. However, it is important to be aware what can be achieved with legal recognition, and what the limitations are.

Protection of COs

The legal recognition of the right to conscientious objection can provide some protection for conscientious objectors. Once recognized -- a process which can be very problematic -- they no longer need to fear call-up to military service. However, several limitations apply:

What about those COs who are not recognized by the state? By whom and how is "conscience" judged? The process of establishing "if a conscientious objection is genuinely held" can be inquisitory, and leads to new injustices.

Often, military service will be replaced by a substitute service for conscientious objectors. What about those who have a conscientious objection which does not allow them to perform this substitute service?

Legal recognition only works in situations where the legal system of the state is functioning and respected. What about situations where this is not the case, or where there are several armed groups, legal, semi-legal, and illegal? Legal recognition is limited to recognition by the state, and therefore does not protect a CO from non-state actors.

Social recognition of conscientious objection

Legal recognition often implies a social recognition of conscientious objectors. The society accepts conscientious objection as a valid option. However, often this is seen as dependent on "providing a service for society." Social recognition therefore often depends on acceptance of the demands of the state and its definition of service.

Substitute service only exists because the state recruits for the military by means of conscription, and performing substitute service is an implicit recognition of the right of the state to conscript its citizens. Sometimes, conscripted human service workers are used to undercut service worker unions. In addition, substitute service might be assigned a role in the civilian defense of the country, thus strengthening military defense.

The question of how to deal with substitute service has been the subject of huge debates and divisions within the CO movement, going back to the 1920s. It is important to find a constructive approach to the problem, and not to let it divide COs.

Challenging hegemonic masculinity

Perceptions of one's own masculinity play an important role in producing "willingness to serve" in the military. The fear of losing one's "masculinity" can produce willingness to serve in the military in spite of opposition to the military and military solutions. This is especially true for working class masculinities which emphasize physical strength, and can easily be exploited by the military. As German researcher Hanne-Margret Birckenbach puts it: "Under the disguise of the  no to killing -- yes to killing for the purpose of defence' [debate] conscientious objectors and those willing to perform military service do not only fight about military violence, but also -- without knowing it -- about ideals of masculinity"[4].

While it might be easy for refusal movements to reject the notion of the "man as warrior," it is much more difficult to embrace the issues of gender justice (and counter homophobia) fully, but all the more important. Cynthia Enloe writes: "As we have accumulated more and more evidence from more and more societies, we have become increasingly confident in this assertion that to omit gender from any explanation of how militarization occurs, is not only to risk a flawed political analysis; it is to risk, too, a perpetually unsuccessful campaign to roll back that militarization"[5].

As long as we as anti-militarists continue to reproduce the gender stereotype of the "strong and powerful man" in our nonviolent actions and in the image of total resisters, who are "strong enough" to face prison, our efforts will be doomed. It will be crucial for the refusal movement (and the nonviolent movement in general) to develop forms of nonviolent action that address all forms of violence -- direct physical violence, structural violence and cultural violence. If we fail to do so, then we are doomed to engage in a "perpetually unsuccessful campaign to roll back that militarization."

Conclusions

Faced with a wide variety of situations, the refusal movement faces many challenges. However, the underlying questions and principles are often the same: how do we build an effective movement against war and militarism, and for social change? How do we build a movement that is aware of issues of masculinity and gender in its theory and practice? How do we build a movement that is not solely concerned with exemptions for a few individuals, but with overcoming systemic militarism and violence itself?

These questions are valid, no matter whether there is conscription or not, no matter whether the right to conscientious objection is recognized or not.

It is in the end less important whether a movement accepts a law on conscientious objection, or rejects it and promotes civil disobedience or total objection. More important is to keep the issues around conscientious objection alive, and not to allow the degeneration of conscientious objection into a "choice between two equally valid options" (as in the German case).

When we fight for the right to conscientious objection, we should always be aware that this right is not the aim in itself -- it is only one step in our broader struggle against militarization, war, and violence.

The table to the right summarizes different faces of Conscientious Objection.

Notes

[1] Question of conscientious objection to military service. Report by Mr. Eide and Mr. Mubanga-Chipoya, 27 June 1983, E/CN.4Sub.2/1983/30, paragraph 21

[2] Pietro Pinna: Functions and policy of WRI, War Resistance, Vol 3, 1st & 2nd quarters, 1973

[3] This number dropped when Spain abolished conscription in 2003. The estimated number of COs in Spain in 2000 was 120,000. Germany accounts for more than 70% of the present COs.

[4] Hanne-Margret Birckenbach: Das ambivalente Verhältnis zur Gewalt. Psychosoziale Grundlagen militärischer Kampfausbildung. In: antimilitarismus information, no 7/1986

[5] Cynthia Enloe: Beyond 'Rambo': Women and the Varieties of Militarized Masculinity. In: Eva Isaksson (ed.): Women and the Military System. Proceedings of a symposium arranged by the International Peace Bureau and Peace Union of Finland. New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/Tokyo 1988.