The nonviolence of U.N. Peacekeepers
Opinion by Dan Rodriguez Schlorff
Green Pages Editorial Board

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan released new information in early February: children in Liberia no longer have to fear being kidnapped for military service or sexual slavery by Liberian rebels. No longer do Liberian streets reek of gunpowder or fresh wounds. No longer do Liberian rebels inflame the shrill cry of children suffering under the power of military force or sexual assault. Instead, Liberia and the world now fear that U.N. Peacekeepers will rape their children.

Over a series of investigations, the U.N. has found that at least 20 U.N. Peacekeepers have violently exploited and abused women and children in an already pillaged, war-torn African nation. As a result of these investigations, the United Nations has placed the U.N. Peacekeepers on the list of 42 armed groups that continue to threaten children either sexually or by forcing them into military service.

Many Greens hold nonviolence as a key value. Gary Swing describes two ideologies of nonviolence in a fascinating article from the Green journal, Synthesis/Regeneration, Vol. 26. On one side of this issue, Swing indicts Germany's Green Party with abandoning the platform of nonviolence in favor of sending peacekeepers to Kosovo in 2001. In an alternative uncompromising interpretation of nonviolence, Swing advocates pacifism as an expression of nonviolent struggle. The means by which Swing proposes this strategic nonviolence includes blocking and resisting military aggression with large-scale acts of nonviolent citizen resistance and noncooperation. Not all Green Party members share Swing's interpretation of nonviolence.

Since the publication of Swing's article, armed military operations have led to the end of the war in Kosovo; the disarmament of several paramilitary groups from Northern Ireland and Chechnya; and Liberia's president, Charles Taylor, being forced to resign, which helped clear the way for peace. These results seem to indicate that violence is an effective way to engender nonviolence.

Other evidence, however, suggests that violence promotes further violence. Should the Green Party ignore the fact that U.N. Peacekeepers pose a global security threat, as indicated in Annan's February report? Absolutely not. Neither should Greens give a latex-covered thumbs-up to U.S. military abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. Perhaps Lord Acton imagined two powerful military forces when he uttered those famous words: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Or he imagined Charles Taylor. Or the guards at Abu Ghraib-clearly the exceptions to the rule that captured the attention of the world.

Ending civil war in Liberia is no excuse for sexual predation elsewhere. Overthrowing a tyrannical government in Iraq provides no legitimization for abhorrent behavior in military prisons. There is a reason the United Nations put its own U.N. Peacekeepers on the new list of predators: self-reflection. Only with a strong political party dedicated to global peace can the United States put aside its claim to absolute power and work toward a self-reflective foreign policy.

The Green Party must engage in serious dialogue surrounding the key value of nonviolence. At certain times, Greens will wish for Swing's vision of a demilitarized United States. When civil war erupts in another nation near Liberia, other Greens will demand intervention. Only after examining the many forms of nonviolence can the Green Party develop a concrete theory of personal and social transformation. And in the same spirit of self-reflection, Greens will recall that their platform of nonviolence emphasizes achieving and maintaining "personal, community and global peace." By considering nonviolence thus, the Green Party enables itself to cultivate a more comprehensive, nuanced platform for keeping peace.

Back to Spring 2005