Loading...
The phrase "peacekeepers can't fight back" actually seems like a joke – doesn't it sound right that they are sent on a mission in a war zone and can't defend their lives and have to watch bullets fly overhead? Israel's attacks on peacekeeping posts in several countries and the announcement by Chinese peacekeepers of the right to self-defense were the triggers for this global discussion. China's decision has made people rethink: What exactly is the mission of a peacekeeper? Are they here to die, or are they here to keep the peace?
Let's start by talking about real-life peacekeepers. They are not the "neutral mediators" that everyone remembers in the sense of "love" the war-torn parties. On the contrary, they are often in a war zone, and from time to time they have to be "wiped out" by the flames of war. Once the war spreads, these peacekeepers will basically become "live targets". To make matters worse, the international community expects extraordinary expectations from them – that these soldiers, no matter how dangerous they may be, will not be able to fight back. This can't help but make people wonder if the purpose of sending these soldiers to peacekeeping is to let them be beaten as "rag dolls".
Israel's attack on the peacekeeping post directly threatened the security of the Chinese peacekeeping forces, and this time the Chinese peacekeepers finally stood up and declared: "We have the right to self-defense!" You see, this simple statement exploded on a global scale. Some people support it, saying that it is a necessary means to protect the lives of soldiers; However, some people have questioned whether this violates the original purpose of "peacekeeping". This question is a bit interesting, are you too idealistic, thinking that peacekeepers should dodge bullets while persuading fights?
The question is, international law has long recognized the legitimacy of the right to self-defense, especially when your life is threatened, and no one has stipulated that you have to stand there as a target, right? But why has the self-defence of peacekeepers become a controversial topic? On the one hand, there is widespread acceptance of the outdated notion that peacekeepers cannot "do anything", as if peacekeepers have to swallow their anger. On the other hand, everyone knows that these soldiers risk their lives every day. Is a peacekeeping operation that cannot be fought back really a peacekeeping?
This time, the Chinese peacekeepers expressed their right to self-defense, in fact, speaking out for all peacekeepers. Can you imagine what the soldiers who are on duty in the war zone every day think? They are faced with the threat of a rain of bullets, but they still have to maintain "restraint" at all times, which is like pushing themselves into the flames of war. The statement of the Chinese peacekeepers has made the international community realize that if the peacekeepers are not allowed to protect themselves, will the peacekeeping operation become a mission that will cost people their lives?
Behind the controversy is actually a deep-seated contradiction in peacekeeping operations: once peacekeepers return fire, does it mean that they are involved in the conflict and become participants in the war? This will undoubtedly add more complexity to peacekeeping operations and blur the line between "peacemakers" and "belligerents". But on the other hand, if soldiers are made to stick to the label of "messengers of peace" and do not even dare to defend themselves, how much can the effectiveness of peacekeeping be reduced? It is clear that the international community has not yet reached a consensus on this issue.
In fact, this is not only a question of military action, but also a deep-seated crisis in the global peacekeeping mechanism. Today, the international community calls for peace, and everyone wants to avoid war, but the safety and resource supply of peacekeepers are often overlooked. If you let people go to peacekeeping and don't give them adequate protection, isn't this a clear way of sending people to the front line to be cannon fodder? The Israel attack is tantamount to making everyone understand that the physical security of peacekeepers is not guaranteed, and the peacekeeping operation has little credibility.
In the final analysis, the right of peacekeepers to self-defence must be officially recognized and respected by the international community. This is not only about respecting the safety of individual soldiers, but also about ensuring the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations. You can't expect the soldiers to exercise "restraint" when their lives are hanging by a thread, can you? They are there to keep the peace, not to die.
So in the end, I would like to ask: Should peacekeepers fight back for the safety of their own lives? Is it time for the international community to rethink the situation of peacekeepers? What do you think about this?