Good News, Part II: Peacemakers

Read Part I here.

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"

Historically, three things characterize peacemakers:

1.) They are people of high idealism who see freedom as the highest ideal. While peacemakers value peace highly, they are not willing to sacrifice their own or someone else’s freedom to achieve peace. In fact, they see peace as a state where individuals are able to enjoy as many freedoms as is possible. Patrick Henry was a peacemaker, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

2.) They are willing to do anything to make the peace. Peacemakers recognize that truth in the paradox that war is often a necessary requirement for peace. The first fifty years of the 20th century saw the rise of major threat to Asia-Pacific peace. Japan fought a war with China, Russia, and China age. Her actions were brutal, aggressive, racist, and imperialistic. Fire from the sky made the peace. Japan has not been a threat to any nation in world in the fifty years since. In fact, it has become a model of freedom, prosperity, and peace in the region. Negotiations would never have achieved this.

3.) They think that peacekeeping is an appropriate strategy with rational and moral nation-states and when no other options are realistic, but they also recognize that despots must be utterly destroyed and generally, the sooner the better. Peacemakers see mankind as fundamentally selfish and self-serving and that disagreements and conflicts are brought about by the evil desires of despots.

The fundamental difference between the two is more than just a semantic one. Peacekeepers seek to preserve the status quo with reason, understanding, and tolerance. They hope to “keep” peace, so give it a chance. It is, at its essence, a passive position. They want to keep the peace as though they are keeping the neighbor’s dog while they are away for the weekend. If that were the case, all one would have to do is feed it some kibbles, take it for walkies, and scoop its poop. Unfortunately, there is a dog-knapper out there, and he wants to steal the neighbor’s dog and ship him to a slave-dog factory in the third world where poor Fido will slave out his last days making coffee mugs inscribed with the lyrics of John Lennon’s “Just Imagine”. When the dog-knapper shows up at the door with a loaded Uzi, our peacekeeper is going to be prepared to do little more than watch as Fido is boxed up and shipped out. If he is a well-trained peacekeeper, he will probably offer to help with the taping, hand over the leash, and offer to drive them to the airport. A peacemaker would have dropped a smart bomb on the dog-knapper’s car, sent the marines to the factory to liberate the pooches, and then built an entirely new factory based upon basic civil liberties and manufacturing flea collars.

Case in point, here is the Canadian monument to peacekeepers. I have a great respect for the many selfless men and women who have sacrificed their time and lives in attempts to preverve the peace in numerous difficult areas. That being said, look at the monument: there is a guy observing through binoculars, a woman using a field radio, and guy standing watch with a rifle. They aren't doing anything. Notice the inscription, "Reconciliation". Contrast that with the Marine Corps War Memorial. They have conquered a deadly foe on the road to the defeat of an evil totatitarian regime. They will lose many thousands of their own in this one battle They were peacemakers.











Peacemakers seek to make the peace where there is no peace. Peacemakers are also willing to sacrifice in the present in order to avoid conflict in the future. In Iraq, there had been a kind of peace. That is, there was no armed conflict or violence (if you don’t count state-sponsored murder and genocide). That made it an ideal state for the peacekeepers. But peacemakers looked at Iraq and saw a leader that had launched two aggressive wars, had gassed his own people, denied his people any sort of civil liberties (a think I even saw an Amnesty report that suggested it was becoming “worse than the fascist-totalitarian regime of the United States”), had used poison gas against civilian communities, and had led the third world in research into atomic weapons, chemical, and biological agents. Seeing this, the peacemakers in the Bush administration made the decision to sacrifice peace in the present to assure a true peace in the future. It was a bold mood and heavily criticized. It rattled the peacekeepers and exposed the failure of their strategies in Iraq. It is the type of move few politicians are willing to make these days. That is the fundamental difference between a politician and a leader. A leader is willing to risk current standing and power for a greater future good while a politician only seeks to preserve his current status.

I think George W. Bush may go down in history as a peacemaker despite launching two “aggressive” wars. James Madison earned that that status after finally dispatching the Barbary pirates in our first war on terror. Harry S Truman, George Marshall, and Douglas MacArthur earned that status after World War II. Ronald Reagan earned that status after the Cold War. Much has to happen before Bush the Younger will be considered a peacemaker. Today and days after it will be important days.

Thoughts Anyone?

Peace

Thoughts on the London Attacks

My earlier post today was written before my knowledge of the London atrocities. I was going to apply it the world’s response after 9/11. Despite the clear fact that the peace had already been broken and an initial unity, the world divided itself into peacemakers and peacekeepers. Tony Blair led his people, almost alone in Western Europe, in declaring themselves on the side of the peacemakers (which I have yet to define in my blog).

First, I offer my prayers for the English people. They have been our closest allies for the past hundred years. I have no doubt that if they had abandoned us after 9/11 like so many of our other so-called allies, then the attack would not have occurred this morning in London. I pray for their pain, grief, and shock. I pray also that their response to this attack will represent the best of the English spirit:

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. […]

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.--Winston Churchill

Second, al-Qaida is very, very smart. While the attack must have been planned weeks ahead in order to coincide with the G-8 summit in Scotland, it came with an added bonus, London had been awarded the Olympic games the day before. Four simultaneous attacks with perfect timing would be impressive by the U.S. military. It is even more impressive by a terrorist organization. They should not be underestimated.

My analysis: I am certain, considering the scope and depth of al-Qaida operations, that they are perfectly capable of launching another attack on U.S. soil. They haven’t. Why? The 9/11 attacks initially created worldwide sympathy for the United States that must have scared their leadership. Successful terrorists attacks should serve to divide the victim and expose his impotence. Another attack runs the risk of unifying American public opinion. Al-Qaida is better served by fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq and basking in American disunity and the slow weakening of her resolve. Time is al-Qaida’s greatest weapon in the United States. There is nothing to gain in an attack on American soil.

In addition, the United States runs presidential elections every four years. Al-Qaida knows that it has to deal with Bush the Younger until 2009 and knows that his response will not be the weak Western response that al-Qaida saw after earlier attacks (WTC I; USS Cole; African Embassies, etc). The 9/11 attacks did not expose American weakness, but revealed the strength of an America when led by a man willing to take steep political risks. Instead of planning another attack, al-Qaida has spent the years since 9/11 consumed with defense while undergoing a strategic reassessment. Their goals have not changed, but their means have.

My belief is that al-Qaida has been systematically seeking to isolate the United States on the world stage and divide Americans at home. The Bali and Spanish bombings were attempts to dislodge Australia and Spain, respectively, from the US coalition. The London bombings are part of that same strategy. This attack is aimed at our only major partner. It is a test of English resolve. Before the bombing, English resolve was weakening much like it has here in the United States. Blair has been indomitable. His leadership in the war has been as courageous, perhaps even more so, than Bush’s. However, I hazard no guess on what may happen next. I fear the English response will be the Spanish one: submission. At the same time, I was left surprised and moved when the 9/11 attacks revealed that a deep strength resides in America. We shall see. We shall pray.

Peace

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