by Paul Kortenhoven
I have been asked to write a short article about the relationship, if there is one, between violence and peace. From an academic perspective, this would be almost a never ending task beginning with Augustine, going through the violent history of the pre-reformation church, the development of the traditional “peace” churches (Anabaptists, Mennonites and Quakers) and into the Bonhoeffer approach in Nazi Germany to the present day proclamations and theories of just war, pre-emption and proportionality.
So I have a different approach: drawing from my real experience as both a first-hand witness to and recipient of violence, and as a participant in the peace-making process of the civil war in Sierra Leone. From 1991-2002, our family was in this country with a few breaks necessitated by increasing violence and the possibility of immanent attacks by one of the most brutal and undisciplined rebel forces in the history of war in Africa. What I offer you is reality, not theory, and what I personally recommend is what I saw working in that horrible situation. I will do this through two short stories.
First: In 2001, twelve British soldiers were kidnapped by a notoriously murderous rebel group called the “West Side Boys.” The British military decided to rescue them and they did this by means of a pre-dawn attack by the SAS (Special Air Service). In this rescue mission, one of the kidnapped British soldiers was killed and the other eleven were rescued un-harmed. Following the rescue, the SAS force did a search and destroy mission in the area and basically eliminated the “West Side Boys” and any future possibility of their being a threat to anyone or anything. Shortly after this incident, the entire rebel offensive had second thoughts about their chance of success in a civil war and finally began to seriously negotiate for some kind of favorable peace deal.
In order to re-enforce their presence and their ability to intervene, the British Navy staged regular mock invasions on the beaches of Freetown which were open to all (including any infiltrated rebel spies) who cared to watch them. This included a visible aircraft carrier on the horizon sending Hercules helicopters which landed troops and tanks on the beach while a dozen helicopter gunships buzzed overhead and then they enclosed the entire area in razor wire, all within one hour - a most impressive performance designed to intimidate, which it did very well.
Extreme violence perpetrated against the extremely violent rebel group was the main catalyst which led to the final working out of a peace accord, which held. The Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and their “West Side Boys” faction admitted publicly that they could not mount any kind of successful attack against any of the government forces as long as they were backed by the British forces. And the British forces made it very clear that they were not leaving until there was a peace established in the country. Peace came to Sierra Leone one year after this rescue mission.
Second: The United Nations had over 17,000 peace-keeping troops in Sierra Leone during the later years of the war (1998-2002). Until 1999 they were quite ineffective due to a command structure that did not believe in any offensive action unless there was an imminent threat to UN personnel or equipment. This approach led to the kidnapping of several hundred UN troops in 1998, the theft of all their equipment, weapons and intelligence information, the murder and dismemberment of eight UN troops. In 1999, a new command was established under a Kenyan general. He believed that the UN had to take a different, stronger stance and when another offensive action of the rebels was directed against his UN troops, they responded immediately, repelled and eliminated the attacking rebels as well as the base that had been their home. Because this UN General made it very clear that his troops would continue to use this offensive approach whenever they saw either civilians or themselves under rebel threat, the threat was simply extinguished in that area. There was never another attack mounted against UN forces in Sierra Leone.
Again, the use of violence in reaction to an extremely violent attack by an extremely violent rebel force simply stopped them. Along with the British stance in Sierra Leone, this also was a main catalyst for peace.
My point? When you are in the very middle of a horribly brutal war, when you are burying dismembered bodies, when you are yourself ducking bullets and running from deadly attacks, you do not usually start thinking about Augustine’s just war theory, or being a pacifist, or about your church’s stand on non-violent resistance or being a second Ghandi. There is a time to do these things and that time is when there is peace. Continual discussion and debate by our philosophers and clerics, by our professors and agencies does not lead to peace when a war is raging. What leads to peace is serious and, at times, very violent intervention, and I would dare to say that we can do this in the name of a just and gracious Lord. We weep together at a world where such choices are simply necessary and may we look with joy to the time when they will not even be a thought. That is heaven! Won’t it be great not to have to discus such issues ever again?
Questions that may come: 1) How do you determine which violence is justified?
2) Should there be an international agreed upon peace making force that operates regionally to stop conflict like Rwanda, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Darfur from escalating into possible genocide?
3) Does biblical justice demand that Christians respond to stop violence against God’s people, i.e. innocent civilians?
4) If you have the capability to intervene and stop escalating civil conflict, can you choose not to use it and remain true to your faith? To your commitment to implement God’s justice?
