Published in Volume 4, Issue 3, December 1, 2005

Peaceful Solution

Is it time to give a National Department of Peace, a chance?

by Steve Patterson <http://www.thebiggreen.net/info.php?staff=142>

 On any given whim, our country has the destructive power profound 

enough to utterly obliterate any other nation in the world. But 

just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

 Bernard K. Doyle, Jr., a retired U.S. Army officer, served 27 years as 

An infantryman. Although he gives his full support to the military and

sympathizes with the men overseas, Doyle said he no longer condones 

war as a solution. "I am aware of lobbying and movements at present 

and in the past that have been developed to end war, something that 

will not catch on quickly in this nation and other nation states,

" said Doyle. "However, it appears to me that the loss of women, 

children, old people and institutions such as churches, museums, 

power plants water sources and the likes make the people of a 

country suffer beyond the aims of war."

We, as Americans, are protected by the most powerful military on the 

planet. A comforting thought? Many are beginning to think not. 

Throughout MSU and across the nation, Americans are crying out to 

the U.S. government for an alternative method for handling conflict 

- many Americans are crying out for peace. "Our national constitution

 is built on equality and fairness. We need to be reminded of that.

We need to develop peaceful alternatives to conflict."

--Gwen Hill

The state of Michigan has become one of several focal points for the 

Peace mission and the suggested Department of Peace. Gwen Hill, the 

Department of Peace's Congressional Team Leader for the 9th district 

of Michigan does her part everyday to spread the word about what the 

proposed organization would, and does, stand for.

"This is legislation that is meant to last longer than any one war 

or administration," said Hill. "We live at a time when we all see 

the level of violence that permeates our lives and our communities. 

One glance at the headline stories on TV news reports is enough to 

understand that violence threatens to overtake our intentions. It's 

wearing us out."

 And the movement isn't just about that war overseas. "Many people 

Believe that the movement for a Department of Peace is a response 

to the war in Iraq," said Hill. "This is incorrect."

Hypothetically, the war serves as an arena for the Department of 

Peace movement itself. What would the Department of Peace do to 

help the situation? While certainly the proposed department's 

attention span isn't limited to war situations including the 

controversial one in Iraq, it gives a good launching pad for 

discussion on just how the Department of Peace would respond.

 Doyle, having served time for his country, expressed his concerns 

about the current situation. "I believe that now, deeply ensconced 

in a war we are extending ourselves beyond our means and dollars," 

the veteran said. "People are now beginning to question the validity 

of this war and its toll of more than 2,000 of our young men and 

women. People are unsure of the outcome -withdrawal when and how, t

he timing - when will it stop?"

 Some wonder if a Department of Peace could have kept the war from 

Escalating to 2,000 deaths. "If a Secretary of Peace had been a 

part of the Cabinet prior to the Iraq war, we might never have 

entered a war of these proportions," said Hill. "We might have 

had a clear, exit strategy that promoted peace between our nations. 

We might not be creating four new terrorists in the families of 

every one terrorist that we kill. There might be fewer people in the 

world who hate us for our disrespect of cultural norms and our 

violent aggression toward countries whose cultures are not 

westernized to our liking."

 Despite the lack of anything that resembles a peace department in 

our nation's contemporary government, this is not the first time a 

concept of this nature has been announced. In fact, propositions of a 

governmental peace agency have dated back to discussions among 

framers of the Constitution. Throughout American history, the 

notion of having something on this scale has been brought up 

several times, resurging in the minds of revolutionary officials 

but having no real momentum.

 That is, until now.

 Dissipating poll numbers are beginning to show a growing unrest 

towards the war in Iraq, while peace protests and anti-war 

demonstrations litter the nation each year. More importantly, 

the rest of the world grumbles with a critical tongue and glares 

with a disparaging eye. When did America become the evil empire?

 The first formal proposal for the establishment of a U.S. 

Department Of Peace dates to 1792, when architect/publisher 

Benjamin Banneker and physician/educator Dr. Benjamin Rush proposed 

the idea. The initiative was for a "Peace Office" that was to be 

equal with the "War Office," however the concept never received 

proper footing.

 On July 11, 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced 

legislation to create a cabinet level agency dedicated to 

peacemaking and the study of conditions that are conducive to peace. 

Hill said that progress was being made in getting the bill passed

through congress. She further explained that there are now 60 

Congressional co-sponsors of this legislation. There is a bill on 

the floor of the House (House Bill # H.R. 3760) and within the past 

few weeks, a similar bill was introduced on the floor of the Senate 

(Senate Bill # S.1756) by Sen. Mark Dayton of Minnesota. There are 

activist groups in more than 280 Congressional Districts in 48 states 

and now activist groups in every Congressional District in Michigan.

 This is the potential Department of Peace: a theoretical executive 

branch cabinet that would handle all matters in foreign and 

domestic conflict resolution. The bill also provides for a Peace 

Academy that would train people in peace and peacemaking strategies, 

just as our military academies train students in military strategies.

With conflicts and crisis around the world, the proposed organization 

Would act as an alternate solution for the loss of U.S. casualties 

in a wartime situation. Many are wondering why nothing like this 

had never been done before. Why has it taken America, the world's 

foremost "superpower," to think of a peaceful organization in times 

of conflict resolution that is commonly solved by the gun?

 "The problem isn't that peace is a bad idea...the problem is the 

Department of Peace would be completely ineffective."

--Dave Coogan

 "At the International level, the bill provides for a Secretary of 

Peace on par with the Secretary of Defense," said Hill. "When 

cabinet members meet to respond to an international conflict, the 

Peace Secretary would put peace options on the table for discussion 

and make recommendations to the President."

 Hill said that in a war situation, a Peace Secretary would provide 

Input from peace building experts on how to begin a war with peace 

outcomes integrated into the strategy. "In this way, we can show 

the world that a desire for peaceful coexistence is central to 

American operations abroad," she said.

The Department would not just be an agency on the international 

level but a worldwide organization that deals with many fronts, 

including state, local and domestic issues. Hill explained that on 

the domestic level, the bill provides for trained peace experts to 

present options for making and maintaining peace in response to 

conflict that occurs within our nation and at the local level, the 

bill funds a way to coordinate the application of best practices 

of the many local organizations that respond to violence and 

conflict in our cities and towns.

 "Imagine, for example, local police departments that are burdened 

with responding to domestic violence complaints would be able to 

easily initiate a coordinated community response that included 

family counseling, violence prevention strategies, conflict 

resolution strategies, etc," said Hill.

"Families with repeated domestic violence issues could be served in 

ways that can prevent serious injury, murder or jail time. The 

savings to our communities would be significant."

 While Hill's enthusiasm for a more basic solution is understandable, 

Many disagree that an organization is required for that purpose. 

Dave Coogan, the second vice chair of the College Republicans and 

international relations junior, is decidedly skeptical about this 

affair. "The domestic solutions the Department of Peace is supposed 

to provide are already handled at the local level," he said. 

"The Department of Peace is going to address problems like drug and 

alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse, civil rights, sister-city 

programs and animal abuse. I can assure you that your city and 

state government is going to handle these problems better than the 

federal government." Coogan is also weary of the financial costs 

the department would bring. "If I remember right, the Department 

of Peace budget would be almost $10 billion. I don't think that 

the United States government should be spending money on a 

Department of Peace," said Coogan. "The problem isn't that peace 

is a bad idea…the problem is the Department of Peace would be 

completely ineffective."

"This campaign gives rise to a renewed level of good citizenship.

Peace is what our citizens want."

  --Gwen Hill

The ultimate decision could rest solely on this pivotal matter. 

"The proposed budget for a Department of Peace and Nonviolence would 

be only 2 percent of the budget of the Department of Defense in 

any given year," said Hill. We know that effective, preventive 

measures save money. The war in Iraq is costing us approximately 

$1 billion each week. Without an exit strategy, who knows how long 

this astronomical drain on our economy will last?"

 Once aptly named the War Department before 1947, the United States

Department of Defense's budget exceeds approximately $425 billion a 

year(not including the tens of billions more in supplemental 

expenditures allotted by Congress) and since its birth has waged 

major campaigns in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. The Department of 

Defense includes the combined powers of Army, Navy, Air Force and 

Marines as well as non-combat agencies such as the National Security

 Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

 Coogan was adamant about his opposition to the proposed organization,

stating that most of the international issues that the Department of 

Peace will deal with are handled by the Department of State. "The 

Department of Peace being a counter to the Department of Defense…

not going to happen," he said. "Even if the Secretary of Peace was 

on the National Security Council, he or she would still be one of 

the President's supporters. They would not be bringing an 

alternative policy perspective to the discussion."

This is another problem facing the proposition…do we really need 

Something that could so easily be covered by another faction? While 

this is a major question, Doyle reminds us that there is no attempt 

at issues such as these. He said it could be to the nation's 

ultimate benefit to have one organization in charge of handling 

conflict decisions. "I do not see the Department of Peace 

conflicting with the Department of Defense but rather being 

an alter ego for it and the entire government," the former 

soldier said. "Our national constitution is built on equality 

and fairness. We need to be reminded of that. A Department of Peace 

would make that more evident. We need to develop peaceful 

alternatives to conflict."

 With all the praise and opposition, the Department of Peace is 

either a saving grace for world and domestic issues or a doomed 

ideological venture-and a costly one at that. "I think it would just

 be a costly government office that would make people like 

Martin Luther King Assistant Secretary to Civil Rights," said 

Coogan. "He would then be working in the government bureaucracy 

instead of creating change in the street."

 Expressing overall thoughts on who we are as a people and what the

organization could mean for us as a whole, Hill said, "It's you and

 me and our neighbors being responsible and responsive citizens.

This campaign gives rise to a renewed level of good citizenship. 

Peace is what our citizens want. The Department of Peace and 

Nonviolence Campaign gives ordinary citizens the opportunity to 

learn about how legislation get passed. It gives us a vehicle to 

make a meaningful contribution toward the kind of society Americans 

really want."

She continued, "What Americans are learning is that our democracy 

does not work without us. Our democracy is meant to be by the 

people, of the people and for the people. The 'people' is us."

 It is easy for any MSU student to get involved with the program. 

Go to www.thepeacealliance.org and request to find a point person 

in your area. From there you will be permanently signed up on the 

Department of Peace mailing list and will receive e-mails from the 

leader in your area.

*Steve Patterson can be reached at 

http://us.f348.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?

Copyright 2003-2005 The Big Green. All Rights Reserved.