Good News: "Peacekeepers seek to prevent attack"

I was using some old newspaper to wrap up some glass valuables for storage. A headline caught my eye: "Peacekeepers seek to prevent attacks" (from the AJC Oct 7, 1999). The article concerns the troubles in East Timor. Before I get off track by explaining why I have a newspaper from 1999, let me seek to understand this headline. Let's see. Peacekeepers are people who, I presume, try to keep the peace. So, they were trying to prevent attacks, as opposed to planning attacks (warmakers) or observing attacks (reporters). Is this a case where the paper is merely trying to define a term in the headline? i.e. Peacekeepers (noun-pl): those who seek to prevent attacks. Or is something else going on? Were these people referred to in the headline keeping the peace in the "hoarding" sense? Maybe they had all the peace in the neighborhood and didn't want to share. In that case, they would be entirely justified in trying to prevent attacks aimed at stealing their peace.

This little headline got me to thinking about the terms, "peacekeeper" and "peacemaker". I realized that their is a fundamental difference between the two; it is that difference that explains much of the red/blue debate here in the states and the Bush/Blair vs. Chirac/Schroeder debate internationally.

What is a "peacekeeper"?
Google gave me 603,000 hits for the term. Apparently there was a "Peacekeeper War" on Farscape.
Dictionary.com has this to say:
"1. One that preserves or promotes peace: the peacekeeper in the family.
2. A member of a military force engaging in peacekeeping activities, often under international sanction. "

Historically, peacekeepers are characterized by three things:
1.) They are people of high idealism who see peace as the highest ideal. Peacekeepers generally define peace as the absence of armed conflict or violence.

2.) They are willing to do anything short of violence to preserve the peace. Usually this involves giving parties that view themselves somehow aggrieved whatever it is that will mollify them. When that is not possible, the peacekeeper may resort to punitive measures like isolation, sanction, boycott, etc. This often means gaining peace today at the risk of trouble tomorrow.

3.) They think that understanding and conciliation are the keys to achieving peace. Peacekeepers see mankind as fundamentally good and that disagreements and conflicts are brought about by misunderstandings and intolerance. Promoting tolerance and understanding is, therefore, the primary safeguard to peace.

Despite their good intentions, peacekeepers are generally not remembered kindly by history. Neville Chamberlain is usually cited as the greatest (or worst) example of this. No one doubted his high idealism. His desire to keep the peace was so intense that he gave Hitler everything that der Fuhrer wanted. He reached an understanding with Hitler at Munich and thought that he had achieved "peace in our time". His real achievement was the encouragement of Adolf Hitler and the beginning of the most destructive conflict in world history.

The problem with peacekeeping is that peace cannot be "kept" unless peace is desired by all involved. While peacekeepers recognize this problem, their primary way of addressing it is by creating this desire for peace among potential belligerents. The preferred process to achieving this end is to understand the potential belligerents demands and to give to them what they demand. But this tactic only creates a different desire, the desire for more.

European leaders allowed Hitler to violate the Treaty of Versailles because they wanted to keep the peace and they understood his demands. European leaders allowed Hitler to annex Austria because they wanted to keep the peace and they understood his demands. Europe allowed Hitler to seize part of Czechoslovakia because they wanted to keep the peace and they understood his demands. Europe allowed Hitler to seize the rest of Czechoslovakia because they wanted to keep the peace and they understood his demands. Why then were they so surprised when he invaded Poland? What lesson had they taught him at each step of the way? "Ask and it shall be given unto you" because we value peace above all other ideals. They thought his demands were reasonable and that he would eventually be satiated. Forty million lives later he was.

This weakness of peacekeepers has been manipulated by despots the world over. How can you assure your nation billions of dollars of foreign aid and free power plants? Announce that you are planning on building a Nuclear Device (Iran and North Korea). Western powers will beat down your door with offers of just about anything, as long you don't go nuclear. President Clinton thought that he had been successful with this strategy with North Korea. He wasn't. The same kinds of threats are used more often on a smaller scale. Act aggressively toward a neighbor and the peacekeepers will sweep in, handing out aid packages like candy. Rinse, repeat. This strategy becomes a never-ending cycle of threat, payoff, threat, payoff. In this case, discerning the real threats from the bluffs becomes the most important case of the peacekeeper.

If giving a potential belligerent what they want is unsuccessful, what then? Punishment, usually economic and/or diplomatic isolation, is the last tool in the peacekeepers' toolbox. The idea is to make life so uncomfortable for the despot that either internal dissent or economic collapse will force them to compromise on their demands. Who can doubt that the years of sanctions against Iraq made Saddam uncomfortable? Okay, it didn't really hurt him. The problem with despots is that they don't tolerate internal dissent; they bury it in a mass grave. Has economic collapse worked with Cuba (40+ years of sanctions)? The historical success rate of this strategy is suspect. It did not change Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Instead of creating a desire for peace in the hearts of the potential belligerents, the sanctions are manipulated by the despots' propaganda ministers to further reinforce their "justifiable" demands. The potential belligerent is able to rhetorically transform itself from an aggressor nation into an aggrieved nation.



What is a "peacemaker"?
Google gave me 680,000 hits for the term.
Dictionary.com has this to say:
"1. someone who tries to bring peace
2. a belt-fed machine gun capable of firing more than 500 rounds per minute; used by United States troops in World War II and the Korean War"
The Bible says this (Matthew 5:9):
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

This post is already much too long. I will give my thoughts on "peacemakers", later.


Peace