Agreements which respect the rights of others can therefore avoid violenceġ0.I have also thought about this in relation to transitional justice: the notion that justice is needed for reconciliation to take form and for peace to be established. Once you understand the other party, you can come to an agreementĩ. Dialogue is essential for establishing mutual understandingĨ. In order to establish peace, parties must understand each otherħ. Vengeance and violence only perpetuates a cycle of violenceĦ. To fight violence with violence is a lost cause 5. Only a peaceful resolution can ensure peaceĤ. Difference is unavoidable but violence isģ. Difference of opinion is acceptable but violence is notĢ. Here’s ten great quotes which highlight exactly why violence is not the answer to any problem and especially not in establishing or maintaining peace. Self-defense for example is one thing but ultimately there needs to be dialogue, discussion, understanding and engagement or no long-lasting bonds or change can be established. You can’t “force” or establish “peace” with violence as this is the very opposite of peace itself. If we want peace, we have to pursue non-violent means because a foundation built in opposition to the very principles one is apparently defending is a contradiction in terms. Well – no I say! The term oxymoron springs to mind. Violence only begets violence. We’ve all heard the famous saying: “Two wrongs don’t make a right” but what does this mean in relation to human rights and peacekeeping? Does the end justify the means?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |