Could nonviolent intervention do better job of bringing democracy to Iraq

[BigBearJohn]

Not all the news from troubled zones is sad and tragic. The British magazine New Internationalist (August 2005) points to a number of positive developments being carried out as part of citizen initiatives. An increasing number of people are applying to nongovernmental organizations like Nonviolent Peaceforce and Peace Brigades International to join civilian peacekeeping armies. In contrast to United Nations peacekeeping forces, these armies do not answer to any national or political authority, which means they can operate with neutrality. Their primary duty is to foster understanding between the conflicting parties, to help them solve disputes on their own. These civilian “troops” also protect noncombatant citizens and offer peace education to show people the overall consequences of war.

If you think it all sounds hippie-ish, naïve or wimpy, you’re wrong. Most participants in peacekeeping armies are not moral crusaders, but rather pragmatic citizens who have come to view nonviolence as the best strategy for achieving peace. And they’re certainly not wimps. The American magazine Peace Power (summer 2005) reports on nonviolent actions by groups like Chicago’s Voices in the Wilderness. Members of this peace group risked massive fines and even prison sentences to personally deliver humanitarian aid to Iraq during the period of economic sanctions before the war, and took part in the “human shield” actions in which more than five hundred foreigners positioned themselves at strategic sites such as hospitals and water purification installations during the bombing of Iraq.

These various peacekeeping groups share a common vision: to get enough people involved so that peacekeeping armies can be deployed at a moment’s notice to help solve conflicts anywhere in the world. The big question, however, is not whether this would be achievable, but if it would be effective. The organizers believe it is and like to answer that question with another: How effective is violent intervention?

Participants in the Nonviolent Peaceforce say peacekeeping armies are much more effective – and cheaper—than military armies.. They estimate that an army of just a thousand peacekeeping soldiers (one of whom costs thirty thousand dollars a year) would have been enough to stop the violence and genocide that engulfed Yugoslavia in 1981. The peace groups also point to successful historic examples of nonviolent actions: economic boycotts, strikes and mass demonstrations have brought down totalitarian regimes in countries like South Africa, and across Eastern Europe. The Philippine ruler Ferdinand Marcos was deposed in 1986 virtually nonviolently; the same happened to Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic in 2000.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. What was the bottom line

on the human shields in Iraq? I never heard whether it "worked" or not, or what the mortality rate was for the "shields."

I like this approach: kind of like Gandhi with an attitude.

[Ready4Change]

2. Not any more.

Violent extremists are poised to step in as soon as we step out. And, with our diminished influence and reputation (due to the actions of this Bush Administration,) there is nothing we can do to stop it.

[LynnTheDem]

3. Guess first off we could ask the IRAQIS if they want "democracy"...oops

they were asked (AFTER bush's invasion) and the majority of Iraqis polled said no thanks, that's western shit.

I'm sure now though, having seen American democracy in action, they all want it for themselves. Then they can wage wars of aggression, such as invading & attacking America. Oh wait, by internaitonal law, they have the legal right to do that.

[BigBearJohn]

4. yes. That would be the PEACEFUL way to do it.

[LynnTheDem]

5. Well but there ya got problems...

First off, it just ain't our business what forms of government other nations have.

Then there's the wee problem that the Iraqis never wanted our democracy in the first place.

Add to that is the problem that the vast majority of Americans (last poll I saw on the subject was almost 80%) don't want our troops being the world's cops or nation-builders.

And our troops are the worst EVER at nation-building, and are not trained for it. They SUCK at it. We've proved that often enough. :eyes:


And gee, if this was such a hugh!11! concern to bushCabal, how come NOT ONCE did they ever even TRY to speak to Hussein about being nicer to his people? And how come when Hussein offered to be nicer and try more democracy and even offered to do UN-monitored real elections did bush & Cabal totally ignroe all of that and chant WMD! WMD! WMD! MUSHROOM CLOUDS!

Then there's the REALLY BIG problem; America DOES NOT WANT DEMOCRACY in the ME.

Think about it; a democratic nation would choose a government that represents the people...the vast majority of people in the ME (and a lot of the rest of the world) HATE OUR GUTS. So GUESS what governments the people would choose.

America doesn't want democracies; they want PRO-AMERICAN.

[leftofthedial]

6. It could have

maybe it could still, but the corrupt repukes-in-charge have established such a corrupt process and such corrupt players now--and legitimized them--that it may not be possible without extreme violence.

I believe there will be extreme violence regrdless in Iraq. We make it worse and make it more likely that Americans will pay with their lives when the real killing begins.