By Dr Shane Joshua Barter
Soka University of America
When discussed at all, civilians tend to be framed as innocent victims in war. Indeed, they all too often are, and as such deserve protection under international humanitarian law. Studies have also shown that civilians are actors, able to impact conflict dynamics and demand peace. Research on civilian agency have helped to challenge the tendency towards seeing civilians as inert, anonymous victims, but sometimes still cling to civilians as inherently innocent.
In my own research in Southeast Asian secessionist conflicts, I have found myself focusing on civilian strategy that promotes peace, even though it is as common for civilians to support war. As I show in a recent issue of the Journal of Pacifism and Nonviolence, it is important to see civilians as victims of violence and agents of nonviolence, but also that civilians contribute to violence through supporting armed groups, which may be understood in terms of indirect violence.
Although sometimes seen as synonyms, civilians and non-combatants are not the same thing. One could be a non-combatant member of an armed group, such as a medic or engineer, or a civilian that has taken up arms, perhaps part of a defensive militia. Here, I am interested in civilian non-combatants, those that do not represent a direct mortal threat to others, and are thus not legitimate targets in war.
Studies of civil wars sometimes overlook the roles of civilians while also seeing them as central to victory. Insurgents and counterinsurgents alike emphasize the importance of winning hearts and minds, with civilians representing the lifeblood of rebel movements, perhaps the key to victory. So, while civilians might be seen as victims in war or voices for peace, they are also actors that sustain rebellion. Authors may refer to civilian collaboration or loyalty, providing support as individual partisans or through auxiliary organizations. However, civilian support has been undertheorized.
Scholars have provided rich case-based accounts of civilian support for rebel groups, such as Elizabeth Wood’s study of El Salvador. Wickham-Crowley and Petersen have both provided useful conceptualizations of support, with various levels ranging from inaction and providing meal, to more intense forms of support such as joining rebel organizations. These scales, though, are based on the intensity of involvement, not the extent to which support fuels violence. For example, volunteering as a nurse represents intense collaboration, but may not promote violence as much as a single denunciation.
In my article, I plot on a spectrum different degrees of civilian support for violence. At one end, forms of civilian support for armed groups can be seen as reducing overall violence. This includes inaction and non-reporting, attending rallies criticizing the abuses of the other side, or providing public goods on behalf of one side. Other forms of support for armed groups may be neutral, such as providing food, medicine, or shelter to armed groups; these may enable them to commit later attacks, but do so by improving well-being.
Indirect violence involves forms of support that increase the coercive capacity of armed groups, exerting a reasonable causal force on violent outcomes. This may involve providing information regarding the location of the other side, enabling an ambush, or denouncing supporters of the other side, leading to disappearances. Indirect violence may also include providing funds used to purchase weapons, as well as working non-combatant jobs that enable economic activities. This also includes providing transport that allows attacks or attending rallies justifying violence. Civilians may serve as spies, help armed groups to hide or transport weapons, as well as help recruit or train new fighters. One of the more extreme ways that civilians contribute indirect violence is by helping to manufacture weapons, such as IEDs or basic firearms. In these and other ways, civilians provide indirect violence, with their actions enabling armed groups to attack others.
Although focusing on indirect violence shows that civilians are not necessarily innocent, this should not call into question their civilian status. Once a civilian is armed, perhaps joining a militia or being recruited, they pose a direct mortal threat and are no longer civilian non-combatants. Indeed, accounts of child soldiers, in calling attention to plight, may misrepresent supporters as soldiers, unknowingly exposing children to greater risk. Civilians providing forms of support that constitute indirect violence remain civilians, and are thus not legitimate targets in war.
Of course, civilians may provide support against their will, in which case they could contribute indirectly to violence while retaining innocence. This is, tragically, often the case. But it should be noted that many forms of support that constitute indirect violence, such as transporting weapons or serving as spies, will be the most trusted civilians. Such forms of support would be more difficult and costly to compel. It is even possible that some of the most committed supporters of one side will be those victimized by the others, meaning that victims may fuel the victimization of others. In seeing civilians as actors rather than solely victims, we must also question civilian neutrality, understanding how partisanship being indirect violence.
Pacifism and Nonviolence Research Network 