Comment on Paul's article here

[Tracy Young]

Hi, Friends. As promised, we wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to Paul Kortenhoven's March Advocate article, which you can read in its entirety, here.

Add your comments to this post, and let's see what sort of interesting conversation arises! We hope that Paul will step in to comment as well.

[Rhonda Lubberts]

This is a really interesting article. The question that is compelling to me is "If you have the capability to intervene and stop escalating civil conflict, can you choose not to use it and remain true to your faith? To your commitment to implement God’s justice?" Whether one is a person of faith or not, of course he or she would protect his/her family, even using violence if necessary. Why would it be any different to protect innocent people elsewhere, especially as people of faith, implementing God's justice? And if the answer to this is "it wouldn't be," then we as a country have some realigning and reallocating of resources to make to protect all those who are innocently being attacked. But then where does that stop? By many accounts, our intervention doesn't seem to have been a great help to Iraq. So when do you stop intervening so that victims become stronger by fighting their own battles? Thanks for the food for thought. . .

[Peter Vander Meulen]

Really good questions! Another tough one: Who decides when a violent intervention is necessary? I'd feel a lot more comforatble with an international, democratic organization making those decisions than sovereign states such as the US, Russia, or anyother state acting unilaterally. I think we are long over due for going back to international law as the guide for using force and and a body such as the UN to sanction it... In my view that has been the real problem with violence in the service of peace.

Peter Vander Meulen

[Paul Kortenhoven]

Thanks Peter

I definitely agree that an international group based on international law should be the entity that intervenes militarily to make peace in these extremely brutal civil conflicts such as Darfur, DRC. Currently, that means the United Nations Peace Keeping forces or NATO. There is a major problem with both these groups however: it takes years for them to decide to intervene and another 6 months to a year to deploy the troops that are supposed to make the peace. In this "decision and deployment" period, 1000's of civilians are murdered! In addition, these peace operation are often blocked by the governments who sponsor the offending factions, as exemplified by Darfur right now: i.e. Bashir's government is blocking peace keeper deployment and some French UN peace keepers have been killed by Sudanese troops. I believe that it is time a new (or a renovated UN or NATO) internationally sanctioned force is trained that will be ready to deploy in weeks, a rapid reaction force with an agreed upon mandate to intervene with force to stop civilian slaughter.

[Mike Hogeterp]

Hi folks: This is a fascinating conversation! The experiences of Rwanda and Kosovo actually stimulated an international effort to develop the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (r2p) under the auspices of the U.N. (international Military intervention authorized when a sovereign gov't fails to protect it's citizens) Sudan/Darfur could have been a test case for this doctrine but there has been weak political will at multiple levels (African Union, UN Security Council...) to challenge Sudan's sovereignty. Is r2p a topic of conversation in the US at all? Some here in Canada - but with awareness that it has limitations and some potential pitfalls. The concept of National Sovereigty holds deep sway in international policy - does this mean that r2p and an international rapid reaction force will remain nascent ideas? Given the difficulty of these institutional and international approaches I'm becoming more and more interested in community peacebuilding approaches - see Oxfam Intnl's new piece on Community Peacebuilding in Afghanistan.

[Paul Kortenhoven]

Thank you very much Mike. I will certainly do some research on the "Responsibility to Protect" piece. In 1998, during the Sierra Leonean conflict, we (Peter VM, a Bishop from Sierra Leone, Catholic Relief Services people and myself) did meet with the head of UN peacekeeping operations in NY. He was an obvious political appointment and seemed more concerned about making every member nation happy than doing the right thing. Africa (and SL in particular)at that time was not a big priority for him. There is a new man in there now, a French ex-military fellow (his name escapes me) who has a decent reputation. France is one of the few countries that actually did and does intervene militarily (Ivory Coast, Chad, Senegal) so it is a bit ironic that a UN French led peacekeeping boss is so slow at moving a UN Darfur intervention forward.

Community peace building is a the way to go. It takes a very long time to build a culture of peace anywhere and it seems best to start in the primary school curriculum. We should have it in our own North American schools...especially in Christian schools! Thanks for your interest and insight, and if you have any other suggestions please send them on.

[Paul Kortenhoven]

Hello Rhonda
I actually replied a week ago and just realized that I had hit the button and my words in cyber space.'
So this is a second try.

Your questions are the same ones I have asked myself many times. There are no easy answers, but I do think that most of us in the international Christian community do not want to face the reality for horrendous violence against so many innocent civilians ...Rwanda, Sudan, Palestine, DRC, Liberia, Sierra Leone. God must weep many tears when his people stand by and "watch" the murder of non-combatants and do nothing to intervene. I was fortunate to be able to do some actual on-the-ground peace making in Sierra Leone. But during this time, I was frustrated by the lack of will in the international community to intervene and stop violence. Finally, Christians did lead the peace process but it took 4 years for them to get seriously involved and 1000's died in those years.

Check Peter Vander Meulen's response on this issue...he is right in suggesting that the world needs an international body to sanction military intervention and then do it when innocent civilians are being slaughtered as they were in Sierra Leone and still are in DRC, Darfur. However, it takes at least two years for the UN to decide and send a peace -keeping force to any hot spot in the world and often the country in which the violence is happening blocks their deployment as does Sudan at present.

For this reason, it may be better in today's violent world to have an internationally sanctioned rapid reaction peace- making force trained to intervene with well trained forces in key regions. The capability exists, but the political will to do this does not. I believe that it is the time in history to recognize and implement such a program. The international community can not continue to allow such conflicts to continue and Christians cannot continue to ignore this kind of injustice and suffering.

[Meghan Kraley]

Paul asked me to post this article from the BBC as a great example of the his above suggestions to use international intervention when necessary.

[Lisa DeMoor]

Hi Paul,

I'm interested in the idea of an "internationally sanctioned rapid reaction peace-making force." A couple of questions: when you say "peace-making" I am guessing you mean peace enforcement? It seems to be that it wouldn't be very feasible to have the sheer number of troops needed for peace enforcement available for "rapid reaction." This is problematic, as we've seen numerous times (think Srebrenica) where too few "peacekeepers" are maybe worse than none at all.

Further, who would do the "international sanctioning"? The real problem I see in the Security Council is less that they're unable to move quickly (which is true) and more that they are held up, and mandates watered down, by the divisions in the veto-holding P-5. Unfortunately, those states aren't about to give up their vetos in order for us to have SC reform, so what to do? Can we form a multilateral "sanctioning" body in parallel to the UNSC that would ever be seen as legitimate? (especially because I doubt you'll get any of the P-5 on board). Do we then have to fall back to reliance on regional organisations like NATO?

[Lisa DeMoor]

Also, an interesting article about the preventative Use of Force. If I remember correctly, it even leaves room for unilateral interventions, but builds in a system of accountability with sanctions to ensure that a) original reasons for intervening were justified, and b) the intervention itself was "just". I definitely read it with the Iraq intervention in mind. It's maybe a bit theoretical, but a neat read for those interested in this topic.

[Paul Kortenhoven]

Hi again Lisa

Interesting! I was thinking of the many brutal conflicts in Africa when I wrote this article or suggested the BBC article on the Comoros. The US military entry into Iraq was an invasion not an intervention in my thinking, and if justice was a criterion on this one, the US certainly appears to have ignored it.

But the crux of any peace making intervention will get stuck on who thinks what on the justice issues. It does seem clear that whatever the reason was for the US invasion, that has now been de-bunked and re-bunked several times. Unilateral decisions on military intervention are generally not a good way to go, especially when you are the biggest player on the court.

[Paul Kortenhoven]

Hello Lisa
Thanks for the comment. I asked Meghan to post the BBC article on the AU intervention in the Comoros because it illustrated that a well thought through regional intervention can happen without the entire UN Security Council approval. This was quite unusual for the AU to do given the fact that they have not intervene seriously in other mush worse situation than the Comoros..Zimbabwe, Liberia, DRC etc. Maybe it is because the Comoros are 1500 miles out in the sea and not likely to mount significant resistance. At any rate it worked and I believe it may have set a precedent in Africa.

It would be helpful for international peace making if the five permanent members of the UNSC were not the five major arms suppliers to the world. Personally, I believe that business trumps peace in this setting and that it is not likely to change easily. So internationally sanctioned regional peace making/keeping entities do seem to be the way to go.

[Marilyn]

Hello :)

Although I will FOREVER believe that guns have been invented for the sole purpose of causing harm/death to all living things, until my dream of living upon a planet where NOBODY has to rely upon guns, or for THAT matter, ANY kind of lethal weapons of mass destruction, let me assure you that I am not one of the anti-gunners in possession of the kind of mindset who would presume to sit here and tell you that it was the "evil gun ALONE" (to use my friend Charlie's words) that is jumping up and causing all of this dreadful gun violence within our society today, for NO...it is FAR more complicated than simply blaming the inanimate gun...

So just who and/or what DO I place this blame upon? well...here is my list in order of importance to me:

- Less quality parental/guardian involvement in a young person's life. This issue is SO very important as it relates to the personality of a human being, that I can't begin to stress to you how vital it actually IS!

- Too many people who believe that guns and other lethal weaponry will ALWAYS be the only way to solve our world's differences and problems rather than at least ATTEMPTING to use their imaginations by way of allowing their mindsets to become receptive to a less violent way of living via the many less-lethal weapons that are available out there as well as conflict resolution techniques that are presently being used.

- More violence than EVER being shown in the movie industry (and gratuitous violence may I add).

- More violent song lyrics than in previous years (as the daughter of a musician and a lover of music I can ASSURE you that this statement is a factual one).

- More violent computer and video games being produced.

If I could re-write the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this is precisely what I would love to see:

"We, the people of the United States, in order that we shall have the right to preserve a State free for all races, shall achieve this end by the use of less-lethal weaponry only for our continued survival as human beings. This free State entails our personal self-defense as well as our right to our food consumption. In keeping with current government law, if we so choose to possess a less-lethal weapon (be it either upon our persons or within our private homes), we are obligated to store these aforementioned weapons plus any ammo relating to its use in a manner which will serve to protect the welfare of a minor child."

May we all evolve to a higher plane in life where instead of physically/mentally harming one another, just like bullies do in order to achieve something that they want, we use non-violent, less-lethal, conflict resolution methods, which will surely grant us everlasting peace, love, understanding and respect.