Something A Bit More Serious Than Usual

I'm having some difficulty starting this. Perhaps best just to start at the beginning, which is Gundam Wing. One of the central conflicts is the pursuit of peace, and the problems that arise from the differences in how people define "peace", and how they pursue it. The main characters are teenagers who have decided to fight an organization based on Earth that they feel is unfairly restricting the lives of the people living in the colonies humans have constructed in space*. They fight so that the people don't have to, and believe (initially) that if they can destroy the offending elements, it will bring peace to the colonies. Other characters think of peace as something where the aristocratic ruling class runs the show, 'cause democracy and liberty are dangerous ideas**. Still others believe that war will bring about peace because if the battles are horrific enough, people will realize the futility of war, and they'll get sick of it. And then there's one person pushing total pacifism, and that's the one that intrigues me.

Can total pacifism work? Looking through the Stanford Encyclopedia's entry on pacifism, this sounds like absolute pacifism, as opposed to contingent pacifism***. Where a government would deny itself the use of force as a method of dispute settlement. Gundam Wing suggests it only works if everyone**** is on board. After all, if you're having a dispute with someone, and they bring a bat with them, and you stand there, unarmed, determined to talk it out, there's very little to stop them from caving your skull in and doing as they wish. So is the key to get everyone to agree to sit and down and talk things out, to get people used to talking with their enemies, rather than just blowing them up, and can that actually happen? Our history suggests probably not, because if you just kill everyone on the other side, you get everything you wanted, but if you talk things out, with an eye towards a compromise that will satisfy everyone*****, well you probably had to sacrifice something you wanted, and who wants to do that?

If a country preaches total pacifism, then they can't have any sort of military, even as a defensive force, can they? The entry on absolute pacifism suggests there is some belief that violence is OK as self-defense******, so perhaps a defense force is allowed. Except, if you have a military, even if it's just for protection for outside aggression, there is probably a temptation to use it, or there can at least be a perceived temptation by your neighbors. Then they get nervous and arm themselves, ostensibly to defend themselves from you, and what if one side decides they have to attack preemptively? Pacifism would seem to be at risk if only because people can be fearful and prone to abandoning ideals when they get scared.

Additionally, can someone who supports the idea of pacifism fight to protect it? If one thinks that country and its ideals are that important, they'd want to defend them, but that would run contrary to the ideals one wants to protect, wouldn't it? If one begins to fight, that's a signal they've given up on a peaceful negotiation, which doesn't seem very absolute pacifist. Contingent pacifist, I suppose, fighting on the grounds that the harm done by this fighting will have greater benefits for the long-term.

I am really surprised at how many different kinds of pacifism are out there. I guess I always perceived it as "no fighting, period", but it can have a broader range than that, I suppose.

* For example, after the assassination of a prominent person who was working towards more peaceful relations between Earth and the colonies, this organization restricted contact between the colonies, effectively turning them into isolated islands, separated by superior military force.

** I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially what one character spouts off at a get-together of like minded types.

*** Or perhaps skeptical pacifism. The argument there is, if someone attacks you, and you kill them on the grounds it was self-defense, well, how do you know? They hadn't actually killed you, so perhaps you could have settled things peacefully. That's the gist of it, anyway.

**** Meaning everyone that group could come into conflict with.

***** At least satisfy them enough they don't take up arms again.

****** Apparently based on the grounds that absolute pacifism is an ideal, that everyone will fall short of, if only by the basic requirements of nature that require something living to perish so that another individual can survive by eating it.