(no subject)

[violachic]

I'm curious to know what my fellow peace activists think about this PSA (done by George Clooney) about UN Peacekeepers.

Comments

my response is a lecture, I'm afraid.

[anansi133.livejournal.com]

I squirm a bit whenever I see the slogan, "wage peace".

And it's probably the wrong issue to take on, at the wrong time. But there are semantic problems with putting peace and war in the same frame. If we can support peace in the same way we can support war, then it's possible/likely to be supporting both at the same time.

It always makes me think about the old alchemy idea, that hot and cold are unique principles, related to each other, but distinct. It would be impossible to have a modern understanding of chemistry or thermodynamics without letting go of "the cold principle" in favor of the kelvin thermometer. About as backward as a flat-earth believer trying to send up a communications satellite in orbit.


My core idea about war and peace, is that we will have less of the former and better of the latter when we advance in our ideas about civics.

In my scheme, "war" and "peace" are like cold and heat. War is not an opposing principle to peace, it's the relative lack of peace.

The essential element of warfare isn't weapons, it's not even the desire to kill. It's a narrative. War happen when we run out of words. (The way a parent will remind their toddler to "use your words", but no one seems empowered to remind our leaders to do the same.)

There's a narrative that accomidates and reinforces the warfare narrative while seeming like an innocent bystander's story. Historians like to focus on the wars as special times when history is made. Tracking all these wars, they begin to run together, it looks like one long war throughout history, that's occasionally interrupted for brief stretches of peace. "Nature, red in tooth and claw".

I like to turn that one upside-down. What if history is really mostly determined by the way we live in peacetime? What if it's the wars that are interrupting the peace, instead of vice versa?

If that choice makes sense, then it's likely that "waging peace" in opposition to war, while it might look sexy, is a bit of a waste of resources.

Let's use a firefighting metaphor. Fire fighters know that once a fire starts, it's messy and expensive and dangerous to fix. Fire prevention, while less sexy, is *far* more effective at protecting lives and property than heroic measures with ladders and hoses. We don't think of the Fire Marshal's job as anywhere near as glamorous or dashing as the muscular hunks with the fancy gear, but those fire evacuation maps near every exit are just the tip of the iceberg.

This isn't to bash the U.N. peacekeeping mission. Guns and uniforms on the ground will be a necessary part of healing the world for a while yet. But when the 'fuel load' of war narrative is allowed to build without interruption, then we're spending a pound of cure when an ounce of prevention would suffice.

Back to the video, I like the humor in, "peacekeeping is not a celebrity endorsement". Trying to make peace look as sexy as war, is a losing strategy, in my not so humble opinion.

Re: my response is a lecture, I'm afraid.

[violachic.livejournal.com]

I like your response a great deal. I have big problems calling anyone carrying guns a "peacekeeper", although I suppose guns and uniforms are probably more necessary than I like to think they are, at least in some places. So I have such mixed feelings about this video, and the UN Peacekeepers in general.

Re: my response is a lecture, I'm afraid.

[spuzbal.livejournal.com]

"I suppose guns and uniforms are probably more necessary than I like to think they are, at least in some places."

I can relate to this. I'm starting to think now that, while nonviolent methods such as those used by CPT can be highly effective and should continue to be explored, maybe it really is a necessary evil to have (armed) peacekeepers, humanitarian interventions, and so on. I have a strong emotional (knee-jerk) reaction against advocating something involving arms, but I wonder if there's any better solution than armed humanitarian interventions, in the absence of wider acceptance of and resources for nonviolent methods.

Guns are not the problem

[anansi133.livejournal.com]

On the basic animal level of politics, guns are just a symbol of power. The more imagination the people have available to them, the less literal those guns have to be. In some strata of society, "Big Guns" just means lawyers.

There is a distinction to be drawn between policemen and soldiers in the peacetime world, but when war makes everyone lose focus, that distinction gets blurred and lost. If proactive peace were a serious goal, this would be a logical starting point.


Imagining a world without guns is a lot like imagining raising kids without spanking. I'm kind of okay with guns and with spankings, I just want them to be used less often than they are now.

Re: my response is a lecture, I'm afraid.

[vasco-pyjama.livejournal.com]

Want to respond at length, but have to go home. I have no problem with peacekeepers being armed. But need to explain why. Will do so tomorrow inshallah.

[anansi133.livejournal.com]

This article puts a little more perspective on the anniversary:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggyisO2ZzGGm8U_fajih_VZDnfSw

6.5 billion a year, much of that from the U.S., which has spent 500 billion invading Iraq. Kind of shows you where the priorities are.

[whereisjoy.livejournal.com]

Even though I've slowly come to believe that sometimes we all make such a mess than armed UN peacekeepers are the best option we've got right now, that's a pretty disappointing add. It seems to have a bit of the classic subtext "true sacrifice involves wiliness to kill and be killed." I don't blame Clooney for this, but quite a bit of what they describe UN peacekeepers as doing is done by completely unarmed UN workers. Why just praise the people with guns?

[whereisjoy.livejournal.com]

Also, when is Bono doing a PSA for CPT?