The Mennonite farmer was wearing suspenders, a waistcoat, and work trousers. His wife wore the traditional long dress and head covering. They came forward to sign the Pledge of Resistance. A Catholic sister said her whole community had signed the pledge.
A former missionary, a Presbyterian lawyer, a Baptist minister, an evangelical seminary professor, a Jewish nurse, a Vietnam veteran, a Catholic bishop, and a member of Congress are only a few of the 62,000 U.S. citizens who have now pledged to resist a U.S. invasion or major military escalation in Central America as part of a "contingency plan"; more than half of the signers have promised to go to jail if necessary. In April the Pledge of Resistance was invited to present the plan to the National Network of Grandmothers.
That same month the Reagan administration made the congressional vote on funding for the contras into a virtual declaration of war against Nicaragua. The vote's political significance became more important than the actual money. Though stopping direct U.S. military aid to the contras won't end the war—the contras will continue to find other sources—the administration's success in getting Congress to agree, in principle, to the military overthrow of the Nicaraguan government would have been a disaster, both for the people of the Central America and, in time, for the people of the United States.
Therefore, the Pledge of Resistance mobilized the contingency plan by calling for nationally coordinated legal vigils at congressional field offices throughout the country on April 16, the day following the president's major speech for contra aid in Washington, D.C. The call was a good test of our network. Within 48 hours the signal had gone first to regional coordinators, then to state and local coordinators, and finally, through the phone trees to signers of the pledge.
Vigils were held at congressional offices in all 50 states, and thousands of people participated. Testimonies compiled by the Witness for Peace, stories from Nicaraguan churches and families, and documentation from international human rights organizations were all publicly read to dramatically demonstrate the consistent pattern of terror and murder practiced by the contras.
The national vigil was designed to show the human face and consequences of the decision to fund the contras and to help make clear exactly what members of Congress would be voting for or against. However, the Pledge of Resistance had decided that if military aid to the contras passed Congress, thus approving Reagan's declaration of war, a call would go out for a full mobilization of the Pledge of Resistance, including nonviolent civil disobedience at the offices of members of Congress in their states and districts.
We were glad that the full mobilization didn't have to be called for. The April 23 and 24 votes were a moral victory and a clear defeat for the Reagan administration—the worst so far in his presidency.
But two weeks later the president was back, this time citing a "national emergency" and imposing economic sanctions against Nicaragua. A new signal went out, calling upon the Pledge of Resistance to openly defy the economic sanctions through creative local actions of buying, selling, and serving Nicaraguan coffee at federal buildings and congressional field offices, beginning on May 7, the day the sanctions took effect. Also called for was a Day of Fasting and Offering, with the money collected being used to purchase and send needed goods denied by the sanctions to Nicaragua. We will try to do with coffee beans what Gandhi did with salt.
The signal also called for the renewal of pressure upon members of Congress to vote against any aid to the contras and demanded that members of Congress take the initiative in calling for the resumption of bilateral talks between the United States and Nicaragua and actively support the Contadora process to peacefully resolve the conflicts in Central America.
The decisions made around the contra vote and the economic sanctions by the Pledge of Resistance show that the contingency plan will not remain dormant, gathering dust on signed pledges until U.S. troops invade Central America. The Pledge of Resistance has shown its potential as an effective action network against the major, but incremental, military escalations that are the present pattern of U.S. policy.
HOWEVER, THE PLEDGE OF RESISTANCE faces two dangers. First, we could be too cautious, being willing to mobilize the Pledge only in the event of the "ultimate scenario" of invasion by U.S. troops. That would allow major military aggression to go on unchallenged and permit a steady escalation of the U.S. war in Central America short of the "final" invasion, an event that may or may not come, at least for a long time. The Pledge must be an obstacle not only to actual invasion but also to major military escalations.
Second, we could act too quickly or too often and not be careful enough about the use of the plan. Central America activists must resist the temptation to see the 62,000 and growing numbers of Pledge signers as the "troops" to carry out civil disobedience in response to every administration move in the region. The integrity of the commitment made by the signers to act—"if the United States invades, bombs, sends combat troops, or otherwise significantly escalates its intervention in Central America"—must be respected. What constitutes "significant escalation" is a very important discussion and should go on throughout the Pledge network.
The Reagan administration is already at war in Central America. Every month, every week, and sometimes every day, the Reagan administration takes serious actions that can and should be responded to. That is the task of the churches, the peace organizations, the solidarity networks, and efforts like Witness for Peace and the sanctuary movement.
The Pledge of Resistance is not intended to become the umbrella organization for all Central America work or the vehicle of response to every situation, even every emergency. The Pledge of Resistance was conceived and put forward as a "contingency plan," designed to call into action a nationwide resistance to particular contingencies of invasion or major military escalation. The plan will work best when it calls for action in response to events that clearly represent a substantial turning point in policy requiring action beyond the framework of already existing organizational channels. And it will work best when every region of the country can act together.
MUCH OF THE success of the Pledge comes from its roots and beginnings. The Pledge originated at a Christian retreat in the mountains of Pennsylvania. The leaders of national peace organizations, church programs, and local communities were gathered for prayer, Bible study, and discernment when the idea first emerged. Now the Pledge of Resistance has expanded to include other religious communities and those who, though not religiously affiliated, are also moved by conscience to act for peace in Central America. The inclusive character of the Pledge of Resistance has been established while, at the same time, its religious character and spirit have been retained. The fact that the plan was an initiative of the religious community and is firmly grounded in an unequivocal commitment to nonviolence has been absolutely essential to the public image and perception of the Pledge of Resistance.
The Pledge of Resistance has been successful as a national network, joining together many national organizations, church groups, and regional, state, and local constituencies of concerned and committed citizens. As a network it doesn't compete with existing national organizations, but unites them around particular contingency plans they can all support. The Pledge of Resistance stands behind and complements all other Central America work but should not displace or absorb all the other work. If we try to make the Pledge do too much or use it too often, we run the risk of dissipating potentially one of the most effective means we have of resisting U.S. war policy in Central America.
The most important thing that those involved in the Pledge of Resistance did during the contra vote and economic sanctions was simply to tell the truth and to maintain a principled moral position in an often convoluted debate. The Reagan administration has descended into a downward spiral of lies about Central America. The media, for the most part, have allowed the administration to set the terms and language of the debate.
Members of Congress who oppose the administration on Central America have been reluctant to directly challenge the veracity of what the president is saying, even when they know he is lying. Eager to cover their political backsides for the next election, even Democratic liberals have joined in the attack on the Nicaraguan government, which, for all its mistakes, problems, and abuses, has a far better human rights record and more popular base than the "reformist" Duarte government of El Salvador that liberals fall all over themselves to praise. The United States is trying to overthrow a sovereign government in Nicaragua, while praising and bolstering regimes in the region whose sins are far worse than those of the Sandinistas.
The House of Representatives may yet cave in to the administration on contra aid. Even as I write, some House Democrats are expressing openness to "humanitarian" instead of military aid to the contras which can include everything but bullets and bazookas. That amounts to supplying room and board for terrorists, and Congress will be guilty of moral cowardice if it approves such aid.
Our country has a shameful history of intervention in Nicaragua and all of Central America. The policies of shame being continued by the Reagan administration must be halted, in Congress and in the streets. There is a better way than more war and death. It is called repentance and reconciliation and, for that better way, we who have pledged our resistance are ready to wage peace.
Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief of Sojourners magazine.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!