Echoes of victims call out to us over television or even twitter with bloodied images of civilians suffering. Those with empathy want to stop it. There is vast appeal for a fast fantasy of firepower solution. I sing along with Canadian Bruce Cockburn's song "If I had a rocket launcher" with Syria's President Assad and Uganda's warlord Joseph Kony in mind too.
But in Libya, Syria, Uganda, not to mention Afghanistan, Iraq and Colombia, firepower solutions have already or will bring even more suffering for civilians. You don't have to be a pacifist to understand the failed strategic logic of killing civilians to save them.
The fantasy of firepower rests on a faulty assumption that "evil" resides in a group of people that need to be killed in order to restore peace. A realist understands the civil wars in Libya, Syria and Uganda are far more complex than killing some 'bad guys." Like pouring toxic chemicals into an oil spill, the solution of pouring weapons into a civil war just doubles the agony for civilians and prolongs instability.
Appealing as firepower may be, wars require political solutions to reach a sustainable peace that ends civilian suffering. The shortest way to get there is not dropping bombs, selling rocket launchers, or guns to rebels in Libya or Syria to fight their government.
Military victory rarely leads to democracy or peace. Victory only ends a tiny percentage of wars. Far more wars end by peace agreements and power sharing, with military forces used only in peacekeeping roles. The history of successful transitions from brutal regimes to democratic governments illustrates that nonviolent civil society-based movements, like the one in Egypt today, have been far more successful. Peaceful protests worked even against brutal dictators like Chile's Pinochet who for decades systematically tortured and killed any citizen who uttered a word against his iron fist. Violent rebel movements like the one in Syria are less likely to bring about positive change and result in more civilian deaths compared with nonviolent civilian movements, regardless of the level of repression against them.
Success in Syria, Uganda and elsewhere requires vast international pressure on repressive governments, rebels and warlords alike, a peace process with robust diplomacy by skilled mediators, and on-the-ground peacekeepers who don't hand out weapons, but take a defensive stance between civilians and those firing on them.
Libya is hailed as a success story for international military intervention. There were thousands of casualties in the Libyan conflict by all sides. Gadafi's forces killed many civilians in Libya. But the New York Times' account details the untold numbers of civilian casualties from NATO forces. We'll never know how many civilians died resulting from NATO's 7,700 bombs or missiles dropped on Libya. We also won't know how many civilians Libyan rebels killed. We do know weapons sold to the rebels were handed out to 7 year old boys. We also know that some rebels carried out horrific massacres against anyone of African decent, accusing every African of being a mercenary.
The long term consequences of shipping arms to rebels are well known. And now that small arms and weapons are spread throughout Libya, interethnic violence is on the rise and the future is not assuredly peaceful.
This week the viral video to increase the notoriety of Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony faced criticism from the very people who have spent their lives trying to address the root causes of Kony's violence in Uganda. As CNN commentator notes, the Kony 2012 video basically supports the status quo in Uganda by making the case to fight Kony's violence with more violence, to support the violent Ugandan government which creates the fuel for Kony in the first place, and to "dismiss intricate steps of social change and make a narrow ideology mass-compatible by having millions of unquestioning people raise their fists in support."
Local Ugandan organisations working to end violence have largely decried the presence of US troops supporting the Ugandan government's fight against Kony. But it seems nobody in the US government or the makers of Kony 2012 thought to ask Uganda civil society democracy experts working to support peace in their own country. Instead of just decrying Kony, foreign governments and NGOs could do much more to support the peace process in Uganda and to stop working with and supporting the repressive Ugandan army.
Likewise, as we watch the carnage in Syria continue, it is hard not to fall back on the fantasy of firepower. But Western finger pointing at Syrian President Assad is ironic, given the amount of US weapons sold to similar Middle Eastern dictators over the last decades. Assad's bullets and rockets have the same effect on civilians as the bullets sold to these regimes by the US that are now landing in the bodies of democracy activists in Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, not to mention the atrocities by US allies killing human rights activists in Colombia and elsewhere.
There is an important step those of us in the West can do to stop civilian suffering in Syria, Uganda, and elsewhere. But it isn't supporting a military intervention.
Instead of calling for airstrikes, call for an end to the weapons trade. Instead of falling for simplistic analysis of "good guys versus bad guys", look for a political process to address the root causes fueling violence. Instead of hoping for a quick solution, look for long term sustainability. Instead of just pointing fingers at these regimes, look at how Western policies in these regions have too often perpetuated rather than lessened violence.
Follow Lisa Schirch on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lisaschirch
I fully agree that calling for military means in the search for Kony is the the wrong approach.
I do not, however, agree to putting all the conflicts you mention "in the same basket".
The international community's problem is that UN, and particularly the Security Council, is unable to agree on a comprehensive approach to assist fragile or failing states, Syria being the latest unfortunate example.
In the case of Libya, UNSCRs 1970/1973 catered for intervention with military means in accordance with the prerequisites of the R2P concept. Ghadaffi's regime was ended, but unfortunately the country is still very troubled. Civilians were killed by the air-strikes, but the numers were low due to thorough analysis of potential targets (according to a UN Report 60 were killed and 55 wounded by NATO air-strikes: http://en.rian.ru/world/20120303/171698294.html).
Thank you Lisa Schirch,
Jindra
Pacifism does not mean you can not restrain someone to protect these children.
Lasting peace use to take time and it is built upon respect for the people who are involved.
"If you want to make peace w your enemy, you have to work w your enemy & make him your partner ~ Nelson Mandela Twitter @Successopedia #success
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" -Ghandi
From Blog Diaspora African Women's Network (DAWN) "It's fine to 'Stop Kony' and the LRA. But Learn to Respect Africans" http://ow.ly/9IT80
I am looking for the Why and Purpose when someone is encouraging me to think or act in some way. It might look as they want to create something better but it might end up in more terror and limitations of freedom.
The history are filled with examples when hidden agendas and propaganda are used by people who only want Power and Control. The young Iranian demonstrated and welcomed the new regime and only found their freedom and democracy disappeared. The Hitler jugend who followed someone else and ended up in more suffering and violence they ever could have imagined before they joined.
Think and listen to your inner voice and facts before you decide to listen and follow anyone else.
Who is leading and who will profit and what's behind the scenes?
Many Ugandans working to end the LRA horrors feel like the Kony chase in Uganda is just a ruse to get foreign troops to support the Ugandan government, a government that many see as oppressive.
I am open to all facts and opinions - happy to check out any information. Thanks for sharing.
Re: "support for the Uganda government": there are 100 US soldiers with the UPDF in the field in CAR. Assuming the UPDF to be a corrupt and poorly disciplined force, can't we hope that the presence of the foreigners might improve their poor performance, rather than "support" it? Recommended reading "The Violence of Peace: America's Wars in the Age of Obama", Stephen Carter. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/books/review/Traub-t.html
http://tinyurl.com/7tea5ju, - contains videos, blog posts, and
articles with Ugandan voices and other commentaries.
Lisa, what about when the 'local people' are the ones requesting help?
So you are for intervention in Cabinda, but some the world's failure to act there means it wrong to act in Syria?
It would be nice to work within the framework of the U.N., however as you may be well aware it is a severly flawed and ancharonistic system that is allowing one of the world's beacon's of human rights, the Russians, to jam the whole system against the overwhelming agreement of the majority of the world.
So you think there should be intervention for the Cabindan people, but because of the world's failure to do so, it also makes intervention in Syria unjustified?
It would be great to provide help in the framework of the UN, however as I'm sure you know, it is a dysfunctional and anachronistic system that allows the entirety of the international community to beholden to that the beacon of human rights in the world, Russia.
It is precisely because I have many close friends and colleagues who are from Northern Uganda and have lived and worked for peace there all of there lives that I wrote this article.
Where are the local people that ask for US military intervention?
Please don't assume what local people in Uganda are saying is the same thing that Local Syrians are asking for. Syrians are crying and screaming for out side intervention. They name their protest days different names, here are some of them:
""Your Silence Is Killing Us" Friday on July 29
"Friday of International Protection" September
"No Fly Zone Friday"
"Arm the Free Syrian Army Friday"
Many Many videos and evidence show citizens in Syria asking for intervention,
Again, the intervention does not have to be a full scale war, just buffer/safe zone where people can flee to safety.
http://cabindacitizenship.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/un-c-24-should-accept-its-legal-responsibility-as-regards-cabinda.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_TCh1OvFRc&feature=youtu.be
Don't assume that what the Ugandan people are asking for is the same thing Syrians are asking for.
Let's compare and contrast shall we.
Kony is on the run, hiding somewhere in the jungles
Assad on the other hand is carry out an ethnic cleansing as we type.
Ugandans maybe calling for no outside involvement
SYRIANS are pleading for it, they name their protest days after it, here's a sample:
"NO FLY ZONE FRIDAY"
"ARM THE FREE SYRIAN ARMY FRIDAY"
"INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION FRIDAY"
and many many more.
SYRIANS in SYRIA are crying for help, the least we can do is provide a buffer zone, protected by peace keepers.
Would Europe be what it is today if the US hadn't intervened? NO. So war is an option in some cases.
Thirdly, you say a diplomatic solution is the answer. However, like all other anti-war idealists, you fail to take into account the reality of the ASSad regime. Remember, this is the same family that killed at least 40,000 people in Hama, not to mention all the other massacres in Syria from the 70's - today. We have at least 10,000 murdered in the past year, and God knows how many thousands more if we take your advice.
If you somehow think that ASSad is voluntarily going to leave or relinquish power, you might as well sign the death certificates of all the Syrian people. They will kill as many people as necessary to remain in power.
Lastly, the Syrian people are not asking for a military invasion. They are asking for defense. McCain called for airstrikes, but the Syrians on the ground, the ones being burned alive while their parents watch, are asking for safe zones, where they can FLEE the deadly ASSad assault, not become part of it.
This statement is so wrong on so many levels. It seems like all pacifists and liberals are purposely persuading themselves that intervention would be bad in Syria just to fulfill there desire to be anti-war. However, what you must realize is that the people on the ground in syria who are being killed on a daily basis are calling for your help. They too do not want foreign intervention but have realized there is no other way to prevent Bashar far killing them all. Bashar and his cronies are a new breed of murderers. Ultimately, there is a time for a just foreign intervention and that time has come for syria. We have waited long enough and allowed too many poor souls to die.
Its also amusing to me that we here in the US can tell others not defend themselves and not to fight for their freedoms. That is the foundation of our wonderful country. That is how we became independent. We fought for our freedom and we defended ourselves. Syrians will fight for their freedoms and defend themselves whether we approve of it or not!
Wow this statement is wrong on so many levels. When every single family member in your neighborhood is raped, slaughtered, torched alive, the least one can resort to is self defense. Wake up! The Syrians revolutionaries didnt chose violent movement because they wanted too. Its only as self defense. We sit here in the US and try to tell others not to defend themselves, when our country was established on the premise of self defense and human rights. What an extreme double standard. I guess its okay as long as it keeps the liberals and pacifists at bay. Yay, we are not intervening. Well, the lack of intervention is what allows for hundreds of massacres daily! This is not a civil war or a violent rebellion- its a massacre! Hope you can sleep well at night.
In the first place, the interventionists DO NOT intervene out of pure motive; states don't act because of heart-breaking scenes on TV, etc. They pursue their own (narrow) interests. Iraq certainly is one example of that, and of the total mess that interveners often create, worsening the situation rather than improving it (destroying a regime is far easier than building something in its place). Then there is the added influx of weapons, which typically destabilizes a country or a region for years if not decades (even though those consequences aren't displayed nightly on TV, because "we" lose interest). And let's face it, the weapons and the newly-fluid situation can empower people who are just as bad as the ones in power now.
At any rate, the argument here is not for doing nothing, it's for pursuing a different set of policies.
Of course every interventionist has their own motives. The problem is Syria does not off the West any real interests and that is why they are not intervening. So in essence this is one of the few pure and just interventions with little interests if any.
The use of Iraq as a comparison to Syria is silly. No one in their right mind believed War in Iraq was a just war. It was an unjust invasion and occupation of a country for many years. Syria is much different. The foreign interventions are already in place to support Asad via Iran/hizballah and Russia.
Although you say your argument is not for doing nothing, and that you are pursuing a different set of policies; when it comes to actions- you are in essence doing nothing. We have tried the rout of sanctions and pressure and mediation.
Its easy for anti-war people to paint a convincing picture in their mind that there is no need for any foreign intervention just to put their anti-war sentiment at ease. Reality on the ground is very different. Sometimes what is most hated is what is most needed!