AN IDEA THAT DESERVES ATTENTION: 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 promote the party's traditional
Franklin Roosevelt liberalism, proposed the establishment of a Department
of Peace.

Now he has introduced in the House HR2459, 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."

Advertisement 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 would be a constant, working counterpoint to the Defense Department
and its expenditure of billions of dollars for weapons of war.

The department would act not only in an international context, but also in
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.

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 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 side of 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 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 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 Iraq to have a
department responsible for training U.S. personnel in human rights,
conflict resolution, reconstruction and planning necessary to restoring a
durable peace; in short, to do what was so disastrously absent when our
forces rolled into Baghdad?

Right now the bill is a long way from realization, with only a few dozen
congressional sponsors. 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.