onward Christian soldiers...
--------------------
so i'm sitting here in a hotel room in Washington, D.C., blocks away from the White House and the U.S. Capitol... ironically, i'm here for a competition and conference on international law... i wonder if George Bush and his crew ever really stop to think about these issues when they sip their morning coffee... part of me wants to trust that they do... and yet...
i, for one, think the CPT's critics are right...
It could have been a bloodbath. But the dramatic military rescue of the three Christian Peacemakers this week after four months of captivity in Iraq went off without a hitch. No shots were fired. There was no need. Ironically, in the end, the anti-war activists were freed by the very people whose presence in Iraq they were there to protest.
There are also all kinds of gentle (and not-so-gentle) criticisms starting to emerge about the Christian pacifist organization. Its commitment to peace may be in no doubt, say analysts, but does it fully understand the risks involved — and not just to its members? Had it gone awry, however, this week's rescue could have resulted in the "sacrifice" of who-knows how many people: the captives, the captors, the rescuers, even uninvolved passersby. James Loney made it clear he was opposed to any military rescue if he was kidnapped, says Doug Pritchard, the organization's co-director. Is that why CPT has been slow to express gratitude for the rescue, indeed referred to it as a "release" in its early statements?
University of Toronto security and intelligence specialist Wesley Wark says that the peacemakers' "extreme idealism and naïveté" has to be weighed against the costs — not just to families and friends, but to the states that are obliged to intervene, regardless of peoples' prior instructions. "CPT's willingness to take risks, perhaps unnecessary risks, should be tempered with a willingness to take care and precautions. But as far as I can see, they're ideologically opposed to security measures because it would impede their activities."
Their actions, if not intentions, concern former peace negotiator Terry Waite, held hostage by Islamic extremists in Beirut between 1987 and 1991. Waite said the situation in Iraq is now too dangerous for any Western civilians, including the peacemakers. "Many say that's a risk we understand and are willing to take. The only problem with that is that, as you take that stance, you do involve other people in the situation, and that might be a problem. I applaud the motive but at this stage I question the tactic."
Asked to comment on the rescue of Briton Norman Kember, readers of Britain's Daily Telegraph generally excoriated Kember and the two Canadians as "irresponsible." A typical email read: "No civilian has a 'right' to enter a war zone to protest that war or dig up stories of abuse against the soldiers who are fighting it. These same soldiers must then go in and rescue these ridiculous people from certain death at the hands of their captors and risk their own lives doing it."
To critics such as Alan Alexandroff, research director at U of T's Munk Centre for International Studies, the purpose of the peacemakers' mission in Iraq has never been clear, other than they "give voice to the anti-war position. But that doesn't help with post-conflict resolution, does it? They want the U.S. and the coalition to leave, but what would that society look like if they did? The biggest help they could give is to assist the political leadership in forming a national government."
But the peacemakers think their work is stopping war. "You've got to understand that (we) have a totally other mind view," says Catholic commentator Ted Schmidt who knows Loney well. "They are radically non-violent. They are canaries in the mine."
i, for one, think the CPT's critics are right...
It could have been a bloodbath. But the dramatic military rescue of the three Christian Peacemakers this week after four months of captivity in Iraq went off without a hitch. No shots were fired. There was no need. Ironically, in the end, the anti-war activists were freed by the very people whose presence in Iraq they were there to protest.
There are also all kinds of gentle (and not-so-gentle) criticisms starting to emerge about the Christian pacifist organization. Its commitment to peace may be in no doubt, say analysts, but does it fully understand the risks involved — and not just to its members? Had it gone awry, however, this week's rescue could have resulted in the "sacrifice" of who-knows how many people: the captives, the captors, the rescuers, even uninvolved passersby. James Loney made it clear he was opposed to any military rescue if he was kidnapped, says Doug Pritchard, the organization's co-director. Is that why CPT has been slow to express gratitude for the rescue, indeed referred to it as a "release" in its early statements?
University of Toronto security and intelligence specialist Wesley Wark says that the peacemakers' "extreme idealism and naïveté" has to be weighed against the costs — not just to families and friends, but to the states that are obliged to intervene, regardless of peoples' prior instructions. "CPT's willingness to take risks, perhaps unnecessary risks, should be tempered with a willingness to take care and precautions. But as far as I can see, they're ideologically opposed to security measures because it would impede their activities."
Their actions, if not intentions, concern former peace negotiator Terry Waite, held hostage by Islamic extremists in Beirut between 1987 and 1991. Waite said the situation in Iraq is now too dangerous for any Western civilians, including the peacemakers. "Many say that's a risk we understand and are willing to take. The only problem with that is that, as you take that stance, you do involve other people in the situation, and that might be a problem. I applaud the motive but at this stage I question the tactic."
Asked to comment on the rescue of Briton Norman Kember, readers of Britain's Daily Telegraph generally excoriated Kember and the two Canadians as "irresponsible." A typical email read: "No civilian has a 'right' to enter a war zone to protest that war or dig up stories of abuse against the soldiers who are fighting it. These same soldiers must then go in and rescue these ridiculous people from certain death at the hands of their captors and risk their own lives doing it."
To critics such as Alan Alexandroff, research director at U of T's Munk Centre for International Studies, the purpose of the peacemakers' mission in Iraq has never been clear, other than they "give voice to the anti-war position. But that doesn't help with post-conflict resolution, does it? They want the U.S. and the coalition to leave, but what would that society look like if they did? The biggest help they could give is to assist the political leadership in forming a national government."
But the peacemakers think their work is stopping war. "You've got to understand that (we) have a totally other mind view," says Catholic commentator Ted Schmidt who knows Loney well. "They are radically non-violent. They are canaries in the mine."
— LYNDA HURST, Toronto Star (2006/03/25)
--------------------
posted by þΛųL jØŋαŦhΛŋ @ 23:00
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home