PO Box 10372
San Antonio TX 78210-0372
Telephone: 877 814 6972
E-mail: [email protected]

The International Peace Force by Mel Duncan and David Hartsough

July 6, 1999: Tanks rumble into Kosovo. NATO proclaims victory from 15,000�feet above after eleven weeks of pounding bombs without a single alliance�casualty. The Serb army demonstrates for back pay in the streets as their�butcher leader also proclaims victory. The KLA disarms�sort of. Over a�million Kosovar Albanians resentfully return to the rubble of home as�Kosovar Serbs are cleansed northwards out of their homes.

The irradiated landscape soaked in blood, strewn with land mines and pocked�with mass graves flows with hate. Thousands of well armed multinational�troops will attempt to keep the hatred at bay while relief organizations beg�for millions to help rebuild from the carnage.

While the technology has dramatically advanced, we end the bloodiest century�of humankind the way we began it�with organized brutality seeking to�resolve conflicts and assert national and ethnic claims. More people died in�wars during the 20th century than in the totality of human history up to�1900. Our world now spends $740 billion of precious resources on armaments�each year while keeping over 40 million people in the military. Thirty-five�thousand nuclear weapons glut the globe with 5,000 remaining on high alert.�The two newest members of the nuclear club continue a five-decade war in the�snowy peaks of Kashmir.

Yet this century has also witnessed dramatic advances in alternatives to�war. The recent legacy of nonviolence extends far beyond the well-known�examples of Indian independence and the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. In�fact, the use of effective nonviolent strategies is on the rise. Most of�these nonviolent actions have not been carried out by saints and pacifists�but by ordinary people. South Africa threw off apartheid through largely�nonviolent means. A subsequent truth and reconciliation process has avoided�a civil war. In 1991 thousands of unarmed Russians surrounded the White�House in Moscow to thwart a military coup attempt. The people in most of the�nations of the former Soviet block overthrew their communist dictatorships�through nonviolent means. Gains secured by the labor, women�s, disability�rights, and environmental movements have come primarily through nonviolent�means.

Peace activists are courageously and creatively at work in conflict and�violent areas throughout the world. Peace Brigades International, the Balkan�Peace Teams, Witness for Peace, PEACEWORKERS, the Helsinki Citizens�Assembly, Christian Peacemaker Teams, SIPAZ, the International Fellowship of�Reconciliation and others operate in numerous countries including Colombia,�East Timor, Guatemala, the Balkans, the U.S., Israel/Palestine, Mexico and�Nicaragua. Most are doing small scale, highly specialized activities�designed to be an active presence to lower the potential or current levels�of violence and support local peacemakers.

Yet when faced with the brutal aggression of Slobodan Milosevic throughout�the last decade, international peace activists have lacked a credible,�coherent, and comprehensive response. For several years the President of�Kosovo, Ibrahim Rugova, sought support for their nonviolent resistance.�While some international activists bravely carried out nonviolent strategies�with people of the Balkans and still are, many others cited a variety of�excuses as to why they could not be expected to help resolve the crisis or,�in some cases, reluctantly shrugged their shoulders and supported the NATO�attacks. When the March bombing began, many people of conscience faced a�profound dilemma of opposing military escalation yet not wanting to ignore�genocide.

The indelible blood stains of Kosovo, the Sudan, Rwanda, Burma, and so many�other places remind us that we need to bring peacemaking activity to a�dramatic, new level. We need to develop a strategic, efficient, and effective�nonviolent response to brutality, violence, and genocide when actions focused�on the root causes have either failed or are ineffective in stopping current�slaughter.

The world needs institutions that encourage large numbers of people to�engage in actions that inspire hope and call them to higher values such as�the Golden Rule. We need to develop a multiethnic, multi-spiritual standing�peace force that would be trained in nonviolent strategies and deployed to�conflicts or potentially violent areas at the invitation of local peace�movements. The international peace force would have to include thousands of�trained volunteers committed to strategically put themselves in harm�s way�to defuse violence and create the space for peaceful resolution.

Collectively, we have the capacity to make such a peace force a reality.�Many veterans of the nonviolent movements of this century are still living.�They have the expertise to shape the force. Thousands of citizens have�demonstrated their willingness to put themselves in harm�s way to stop�violence and oppression. They will continue to be available. Youth and�retirees are longing for commitments that provide meaning to their lives. A�World Wide Web, already used to advance the cause of peace in organizing the�grassroots campaigns for a ban on land mines and the creation of an�international criminal court, provides an instant means for such a force to�recruit, monitor and communicate. And the cost for the nonviolent peace�force will be infinitesimal when compared to military operations.

At the Hague Appeal for Peace in mid-May, among the meetings in the nooks�and corners of the Netherlands Congress Center, a small group of nonviolent�activists began talking with each other about the prospects of moving their�work to a greater level and developing a standing, nonviolent peace force.�Six meetings, often impromptu, wedged amongst the avalanche of activities�took place during the conference. Individuals taking part in these�conversations came from a variety of organizations and brought a rich�diversity of experience to the discussions.

During these meetings, it became evident that most people doing peace team�work, conflict resolution and/or nonviolent training had shared the vision�at some point in their work of building a standing nonviolent peace force of�significant size. Some still entertained the idea. Usually the idea had been�abandoned, sometimes because of lack of resources, especially financial, and�sometimes because the work in a particular area had become so consuming or�specialized that the vision of a larger scale operation was lost. While some�people thought there were too many problems, especially a lack of�significant money, most people thought that the idea was worth exploring and�developing.

The work of exploring and developing is now under way. The goal is to create�a well trained, standing, nonviolent peace force that would be deployed to�conflict areas at the invitation of local nonviolent movements. Specifics,�such as how many people, training, sources of volunteers, sources of�funding, decision making, criteria for engagement, and strategies and�tactics are being discussed among many individuals and organizations.

Such a task is daunting. The endeavor is replete with problems,�contradictions and questions. We must live those questions. In the last 50�years, nations, some of whom were former enemies, came together and created�NATO, able to administer sophisticated and strategic responses to armed�conflict. In the next 50 years, we must develop an international peace force�with similar commitment, cooperation and sophistication that promotes peace�over war and life over death.

PEACEWORKERS is circulating a proposal for an international�nonviolent peace force around the world to see if there is sufficient�interest to move forward now. If you want to see and respond to the full�proposal, write Peaceworkers, 721 Shrader�St., San Francisco, CA 94117 USA; e-mail: [email protected]

TOP • CURRENT Issue Index • PTN Index • HOME