26 April 2016
3 hours

National Committee of 100: London Committee Archives.
Archive Box 19. The cover states: Correspondence, minutes, etc. / 1964-1966.

- “Outline of Non-Violent Strategy to Resolve the Rhodesian Crisis”
Carbon copy. Author: Ralph Bell. Date: 1966. Format: A4. 9 pages.
Proposal for a non-violent intervention by the British in Rhodesia led by Ian Smith. His outline starts with a few conditions and presuppositions: “Analyse the situation carefully to discover what the crisis is really about […, and in this case…] sanctions or force are likely to drive the two sides further apart, not to bring them together in cooperation; learn to have genuine sympathy with the legitimate fears and aspirations of both Whites and Africans in Rhodesia; make it plain that the object of non-violent struggle is justice and reconciliation for all, not the triumph of one side over the other.” 
From there Bell develops an intricate plan to solve the racial and economic tensions in Rhodesia (if it is successful, the same template could be ‘rolled out’ in South Africa as well). If the pay and other conditions are right Bell expects no trouble at all finding the right number of ‘volunteers’ for his nonviolent campaign. They will be treated as if they are members of the Armed Forces and will be “called upon to do as they are told, to be killed, but not to kill, to enforce a political situation. […] Some [of those volunteers] may be killed. In fact, such is the crisis that it would be wrong to suppose that the campaign could be carried through without casualties. Casualties ought to be expected and planned for. But if the Non-Violent Force could take casualties without loss of discipline and without bitterness, and without resorting to retaliation, it would create that emotional climate in which opponents’ minds would be changed, support won from their side, and a genuine compromise solution become possible.”
Bell doesn’t believe that his plan will ever come to fruition, not because it isn’t viable or unpractical, but because the British Government lacks the courage and imagination to adopt it.

- “Danilo Dolci’s Social Revolution”
Carbon copy. Author: Dennis Gould. Date: 1963. Format: A4. 4 pages.
Short article about the origin of and inspiration for Dolci’s activism, his method (starting from scientific research, followed by pilot projects and engaging in democratic and nonviolent pressure) and his setting up a ‘Committee of 100’ “to further the aims of community development by organized non-violent action.” The name was chosen deliberately, “as Dolci believes that the actions of the Committee of 100 in Britain, against threats of nuclear war, have direct connection with the rebuilding of community life anew (that is to say, not a closed community, but the genuine community feeling which is created through common work and purpose).”
As such Dolci believes that nonviolent action should not be something defensive. “It should be made clear at this point that what is needed to ‘defend’ peoples and their values, is not a defence force (see Peace News and its plea for such a force) in case of invasion, but a non-violent invasion force against our own nuclear bases and departments, and our own authorities who upheld such systems. This implies action now, which, based on the principles of non-violence held by the participants, can be expected to communicate, even with the opponents.”

Archive Box 20. The cover states: Documents concerning subcommittees and actions/ 1962-1967.

Archive Box 21. The cover states: Documents concerning subcommittees and actions/ 1964-1967.

Archive Box 22. The cover states: Papers seized by the police, December 1961 (illegible).
Unfortunately this huge collection of papers is so faded (plus traces of water damage) that none of them are in any way readable.

Archive Box 23. The cover states: London Committee of 100 / agenda’s, minutes, correspondence etc / 1962-1964.

Archive Box 24. The cover states: London Committee of 100 / agenda’s, minutes, correspondence etc / 1964-1967.

Archive Box 4. The cover states: Protest actions of Working Groups, region committees and the other organizations against the gas and chemical warfare in Vietnam and campaign for nuclear disarmament and the other peace activities / 1962-1964 / General elections 1964.

Archive Box 5. The cover states: Protest actions of Working Groups, region committees and the other organizations against the gas and chemical warfare in Vietnam and campaign for nuclear disarmament and the other peace activities / 1964-1966 / General elections 1964.

- “Voting or Nonviolence: From Mere Voting to Responsibility”
Carbon copy (very poor quality). Author: Dennis Gould. No date [1964]. Format: A4. 8 pages.
Gould takes a dim view of the political process in general and voting in particular. It’s all about “recognizing that voting only places power into the hand of the elected MP, who in turn places power into the hands of the parliamentary party, who finally allow their shadow cabinet and Prime Minister to take over power. We must look for new expressions of socio-political life which do not lead to professional politicians, and to professional soldiers.”
Those new expressions are nonviolence and anarcho-pacifism. “Nonviolent revolutionary principles are some examples of political expression which, based on principles and not on power politics, retain their truths. The vote is a five year pantomime, shadow-boxing with democracy, and has nothing to do with responsibility – but addiction from it. […] as a political-social philosophy it is new, and owes much to Tolstoy, Thoreau, Gandhi and the Quakers, nonviolence has a history as ancient as man, it was rather an unconscious one of the individual using moderation and common sense rather than deliberate nonviolent action.”
This “young socio-political philosophy” is deeply at odds with voting for an institution which itself perpetuates legal violence. “Therefore we have to take nonviolent direct action to the voting booth”, which includes handing out leaflets on election day, selling newspapers, picketing the polling places, “in order to convince people nonviolently that they may think that voting is the responsible thing to do”, but in fact the only really responsible thing is to take up the nonviolent fight with weapons of mass destruction.