A DEPARTMENT OF PEACE?

With this nation embroiled in what threatens to be an interminable "War on
Terrorism," an idea put forward last year by Ohio Congressman Dennis
Kucinich has, for me, considerable appeal. Kucinich, who was the one
candidate in the Democratic primaries to unfailingly promote the party's
traditional Franklin Roosevelt liberalism, proposed the establishment of a
Department of Peace.

Now he has introduced in the House HR 2459, a bill that would establish a
Peace Department, adding a new cabinet post to the executive branch of
government. The Department of Peace would "advise the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of State on all matters relating to national security,
including the protection of human rights and the prevention of,
amelioration of, and de-escalation of unarmed and armed international
conflict."

The secretary of peace would serve as a delegate to the National Security
Council and also would "provide training of all United States personnel who
administer post-conflict reconstruction and demobilization in war-torn
societies." In other words, the Department of Peace, with a highly trained
and dedicated staff, would be a constant, working counterpoint to the
Defense Department and its expenditure of billions of dollars to perfect
the weapons of war.

The department would act not only in an international context, but also in
those areas of domestic policy that endanger the nation's well-being: the
proliferation of automatic weapons and the violence in our schools, our
homes and in our streets, where the intolerant prey on those whose
lifestyles they find offensive. It might well come up with some new
strategies for turning around our losing war on drugs, and it might also
lobby Congress to put an end to the cruel and unusual punishment of
small-time drug offenders called "mandatory sentencing." It would also
advise the attorney general on matters of civil rights and labor law. But
its primary importance, it seems to me, would be in international affairs,
demonstrating to the rest of the world, to borrow the old motto of the
Strategic Air Command, that "peace is our profession."

Now, to some, this is going to sound terribly naive, given the current
state of things and the very real, hard-edged dangers that face us. But the
naivete just might lie on the other side with those who believe that
military force and our policy of pre-emption are alone sufficient to make
us safe. The fact is that there is nothing in this proposal that would
weaken our military posture or our ability to strike terrorists and their
havens and to do whatever is necessary for the defense of the United States.

But wouldn't it be an advantage to have a peer of the secretaries of
defense and state whose primary responsibility it was to develop the
methods and means of peaceful conflict resolution and to offer peaceful
alternatives in the councils of war?

Wouldn't it have been an advantage in the run-up to the Iraq War to have
had a cabinet officer whose department was responsible for training U.S.
personnel in human rights, conflict resolution, reconstruction and the
detailed planning necessary to restoring a durable peace; in short, to do
what was so disastrously absent when our forces rolled into Baghdad?

Kucinich's bill is more elaborate and specific than I can spell out here.
Right now it is a long way from realization, with only a few dozen
congressional sponsors. It needs a lot more to move another step along the
legislative process.

Actually, there is an urgency to its adoption. In this dangerous world,
where the strength of the United States is needed to keep the peace, we
need a visible manifestation of our intention to play that role, without
the arrogance that cost us friends and allies among the nations and peoples
of the world.

But no matter how far off it might be, it is an idea that deserves our
attention. We can hope that Kucinich and those who are pioneers in
supporting his bill stay the course and redouble their efforts.