This post is written by Center for Peacemaking staff member Liz LaJeunesse.
This past weekend I ventured to Washington, DC to attend a conference called Pledge2Protect. It was a genocide prevention conference held by the Genocide Intervention Network and their student-lead organization called S.T.A.N.D., and sponsored by genocide education and advocacy groups such as The Enough Project and the Save Darfur Coalition. www.standnow.org
As president of Marquette’s Darfur Action coalition (DAC), which happens to be virtually nonexistent on campus for a few troubling reasons, I found it imperative to go to this conference for up-to-date news on areas facing genocide and for innovative ways to recruit members and hold enticing, productive events. DAC’s Vice President, Lexi Newell, and a member, Nadreen Bagoun, accompanied me on this trip. I should add that I’d like to thank MU Student Government for financing this trip, because it would never have been possible without their Student Organization Allocation committee.
When going into this experience, I knew the conference would be primarily focused on political and Congressional action. And I embraced this, knowing that DAC was lacking in taking political initiatives to end and prevent future genocide. However, at the end of the conference, it was clearer than ever to me that the political movement, however important it may be to the cause, was not my place in the anti-genocide movement.
I see the great impact that political action can have in preventing future genocides. And so I am happy for all the young constituents who gathered in DC and lobbied for Congressional action to prevent genocide. For me, however, serious moral issues kept me from lobbying. The main issue: I do not want military action to be a factor in genocide prevention. It took some extra research, a deep ethical discussion with friends, and a near sleepless night for me to realize that the organization I was intending to lobby in behalf of did, in fact, call for military action when “all peacekeeping efforts have proven to be exhausted”.
Let me make it clear why this statement disturbs me. When can peacekeeping efforts ever be exhausted? The way I see it is this: violent military action has been conducted for thousands of years to “create peace” and it obviously isn’t working. So, wouldn’t it make sense to say these actions are much more exhausted than the less commonly used method of peacemaking, which is proven to create a longer lasting peace and happier solution for all?
Peacemaking is always the answer. Violence is never successful. It makes no sense to fight and kill in order to create peace. Peacemaking may take longer and requires more intellectuality, but its outcome is a longer lasting peace and a clear conscience. It is as simple as this: hate generates hate. If we hate and kill the people responsible for genocide, we make it easier for us to be hated. If we love the perpetrators and work for a peaceful end to their fighting and just consequences of their actions, then we leave no room for others to hate us for our response.
This conference opened up my eyes to the injustices we may be creating when taking military and political action. I am very grateful for the knowledge I gained about politics, both good and bad, from this experience, but for now, my action in this movement will be focused toward humanitarian aid and relief. I hope that with more experience and further studying of political responses to genocide, I can come up with action that I can fully and ethically support. And until then, I will continue to spend my time working for peace and relieving the victims of genocide.
I want to add another special thanks to the people at the Center for Peacemaking who are always there to listen to my ethical dilemmas and to add their words of wisdom, especially Fr. Simom, Lexi , and Nadreen. You guys are amazing and I’d be pretty lost without you.
