Peacemaking as described in the Wikipedia? (not necessarily an authoritative source, of course)
Peacemaking is a form of conflict resolution which focuses on establishing equal power relationships that will be robust enough to forestall future conflict, and establishing some means of agreeing on ethical decisions within a community that has previously had conflict. When applied in criminal justice matters it is usually called transformative justice. When applied to matters that do not disrupt the community as a whole, it may be called mindful mediation. The term peacemaking however is reserved for large, systemic, often factional conflicts in which no member of the community can avoid involvement, and in which no faction or segment can claim to be completely innocent of the problems. For instance, a post-genocide situation, or extreme oppression such as apartheid.
The term peacemaking however is reserved for large, systemic, often factional conflicts in which no member of the community can avoid involvement, and in which no faction or segment can claim to be completely innocent of the problems. For instance, a post-genocide situation, or extreme oppression such as apartheid.
Its not clear to me why an amphibious assault vessel is required for that, or for humanitarian and rescue tasks, nor for peacekeeping tasks. The role that the vessel is designed to perform is close support for an amphibious landing under fire.
And the same with a heavy carrier ... the Force Review distinction between the existing light carriers and the heavy carrier is that the light carriers were not entirely satisfactory when engaged in offensive operations. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
It's been a transformation of the principle, certainly, but it has occurred. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
A task force arriving somewhere, securing a port, with the government or forces contending for power unable to provide security in a volatile situation, then using the port to bring in material ... a light carrier with a mix of helicopters and jump-jets, some landing docks, some frigates for surface cover ... that's not hard to see.
But if it requires a heavy carrier and a squadron of amphibious assault vessels, that strikes me as war-making. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
[Neocon Moment Alert]
Yeah, like when we tacitly gave the Algerian military the go-ahead to suspend the elections and 10 years of civil war ensued. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Acknowledgment of emperical existence does not signal normative agreement.
I think peacekeeping in general is often counterproductive.
Intervention is by necessity an agressive move. It may be justifiable, but it should be justifiable as an act of war not with under the veil of "making" peace. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Peacemaking, peace enforcement or whatever it is called nowadays - "we have to make war to make peace" - is an aggressive move.
I would like to keep those two seperated. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Besides, you wouldn't want to do this with a fighter bomber. What you need is a few propeller patrol aircrafts to monitor the area, and a flotilla of armored multi-role helicopters like CH-53G for the actual interventions. Even a frigate is not appropriate against the kind of very light boats used by the pirates.
Ain't nothing we do not already have. Even the support bases (think Djibouti). It's only a question of political will and funding. Pierre
