[Peace-discuss] RE: a small-scaled metaphor for Darfur

[Karen Medina]

Scott said: > The idea is that peackeepers would not have to use force.
And then said: > and have the mandate to stop them [atrocities]

Scott,

Could you explain the difference between using force and having a mandate?

I think you might also be assuming that the "peacekeepers" would be 
there altruistically, that they would have no agenda beyond helping the 
people who are helpless. One of the criticisms of the African Union 
troops is that each country with troops there does indeed have their own 
political agenda.

Never would I trust troops to go somewhere without either an agenda to 
start with or developing an agenda while they are there. The United 
States, especially right now, is no exception. A NATO force would be 
pretty much an extension of the United States. Never ever ever would I 
trust Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice with armed forces. never.

-karen medina



Scott Edwards wrote:
> Karen:
> 
> The idea is that peackeepers would not have to use force. The would not 
> have to be everywhere.
> 
> The mere fact that those who would rape and kill face resistance or 
> arrest should be enough to slow the atrocities. The mere fact that there 
> are international witnesses on the ground who can document atrocities, 
> identify perpetrators, and have the mandate to stop them should allow 
> some breathing space for the popluations in need to start rebuilding and 
> access humantiarian aid.
> 
> I think reasonable people who want peace can disagree on the question of 
> peacekeepers. I do understand your argument, and the belief the violence 
> begets violence is one I share with you. So how do you minimize the 
> cycle of violence? I think we disagree only on the answer to that 
> question, and it is a reasonable disagreement.
> 
> respectfully,
> scott