Mennonite Central Committee

MCC and Peacekeeping

Judy Zimmerman Herr, MCC Program Development
February 2007

Calls for international peacekeeping intervention are frequent in response to situations of violence and disorder, where innocent people need to be protected. We heard them in Somalia, in Rwanda, in Sarajevo, and currently in Darfur and Congo.

Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) began as a response to hunger and need that accompanied war. Throughout its 85 years, MCC has responded to need, has fed and housed refugees and victims of violence. And, MCC has spoken out against violence and tried to provide alternative ideas for dealing with conflicts. But, as a Christian pacifist organization, MCC has struggled with questions of protection and the use of force.

MCC has worked at this dilemma in various ways. The Peace Theology Project, in 2003-04, addressed the question of how we can respond to the need for safety and security, and what resources a commitment to peace bring to that discussion. Another has been on-going discussions by the MCC Peace Committee, an advisory group for MCC’s international work. Put generally, the question is: as pacifist Christians, can we support international military intervention for peace-enforcing?

In its most recent discussion of the issue, the MCC Peace Committee offered the following guidance:

MCC will not call for intervention responses that rely on the use of lethal military force. … We can imagine many alternative activities for international participation short of those that require lethal force, such as international monitoring, election supervision, police patrolling and training, and other activities that reflect the normal ordering/security functions of a society.

This has led MCC to draw a distinction between Chapter VI and Chapter VII interventions, and to say we can in general support calls for the former but not for the latter. Chapter VI interventions are the traditional peace-keeping interventions that are defined in Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter. These are troops contributed from various nations, under terms of engagement that allow them to carry small arms for self-defense. Their role is to police borders and to ensure that parties follow peace agreements. They provide an international presence and help to calm situations without engaging in direct military operations.

Chapter VII interventions, defined in Chapter VII of the UN Charter, have different terms of engagement. They are at times described as “peace enforcers” with a more direct combat role. Troops serving under these terms are empowered to engage in active pursuit of armed groups and, in general, to act as combatants. They may use heavy military weapons. Such international troops have a much stronger combat role, and rely not so much on the consent of the parties to the conflict, as on their own strength.

In recent years, the UN has relied increasingly on Chapter VII rather than Chapter VI to define its interventions. Related to this is the newly-adopted UN doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect,” which defines protection of vulnerable populations as a responsibility for the community of nations. MCC continues to ask the question: are there ways we can protect vulnerable populations without resorting to lethal force? Responding to this question requires imagination and creativity. We continue to encourage international actors to consider doing this without quickly opting for a Chapter VII engagement.

In summary, if a UN Chapter VII mandate is being developed or is in place, MCC will generally not express public support. With Chapter VI mandates, however, MCC will be part of the conversation. Depending on the terms, MCC may support, bring counsel, or encourage others to support such actions.

Judy Zimmerman Herr is Co-Director of the MCC Peace Office.