Secretary of Peace?
The members of my Sunday School class are at it again. Well, actually, this time it was the pastor. She sent us an article about opposition to the Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act, currently “in committee” in the House. Sponsors of this act want to create a Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence who oversees a department that would:
• “hold peace as an organizing principle;
• endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights; and
• develop policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict.”
I considered the negative responses to the act. I think there are a lot of legitimate concerns, such as how this would be perceived internationally, how it would be funded, and how it would interact with other departments (to name a few). What I find distressing is the automatic, dismissive reaction from many who heard about it. After all, as one proponent said, “I thought everybody wanted peace.”
Of course it’s not that simple. As cognitive psychology showed us in the Human, Indeed post, our brains are not wired to immediately accept new information. But equating peace with communists or with a “new world order” is extreme.
I like new ideas, especially when things are not working so well. Peace in the world is simply not there…so what’s wrong with exploring ways to seek it? Thinking outside the box, investigating new measures. We don’t have to sign onto an act that will be unruly, unduly expensive, or nonfunctioning. I haven’t read the entire act, so I have no way of beginning to assess its feasibility. But at this juncture, I don’t think we should automatically reject a serious, planned proposal just because it immediately strikes us as “wrong.” After all, many once found it shocking that anyone would consider that microbes cause disease…
Be brave. Be human.
Susan
April 6th, 2007 11:50
I’m with you on this one. It sounds like a fresh idea to an old problem, and frankly, you can’t solve old problems with old ideas; I mean if you could the problem would not exist in the first place. So…a new take on things is certainly worth looking at, and one never knows, it could be the answer we’ve been searching for.
April 6th, 2007 11:52
Susan, I agree with you. People also thought it was shocking that their slaves be freed, or that women should be able to vote, or that children should be in school instead of working in a sweatshop or a coal mine.
April 6th, 2007 12:30
Hello all,
Look, this sounds like a reasonable idea to me as well. I’ve just spent a bit of time sniffing around the web for the reasons NOT to do this and they have been hard to find- at least in that limited search. The best I got it the following:
ttp://www.townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2001/08/09/dont_give_peace_dept_a_chance
Does anyone know of additional sources? I looked for anything by Roy Blunt, but was unsuccessful.
In any event, the author in the piece I found generally argues that this would be money spent to support a bunch of democratic causes and so the idea is bad on partisan grounds. To the extent this is true, I agree with her. However, her main point seems to be that this is just a silly idea that would simply never work-That the Department would hold hippie teach-ins where people sing Kumbaya and hold hands.
Again, if this is it, count me out. However, if its a place to teach that violence should be the last choice in conflict, AND teach ways peace is powerful, count me in.
To be as cynical as possible, this will cost 8 billion dollars a year. Given what we spend on war, that’s about the price of a donut and coffee. Why not give it try? It might be worth the public relations value if nothing else.
-Grant
April 6th, 2007 14:50
Hi Grant-
I checked out the aritcle you suggested. Although Saunders made some points, she really lost me when she said that peace was having an all-powerful military (that and, to me, rejecting the seriousness of elder abuse). having a military that all other countries could be a way to keep from going to war….but I wouldn’t call that peace.
This is proposal that simply cannot be compared with other departments that have been around for decades. The world is different. As Maeve said, “you can’t solve old problems with old ideas; I mean if you could the problem would not exist in the first place.” If you keep doing what you’ve done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve gotten.
Susan
April 6th, 2007 21:53
I have been thinking about this post off and on all day but haven’t got all my thoughts together. Still, that never stops me …
The primary problem with this idea, I think, is that it misunderstands the purpose and limits of government. What is the purpose of government? It seems to me that we might usefully toss that around a bit. I will say here that I basically agree with a definition that y’all have probably come across– government exists to restrain evil and promote the common good.
You will notice that this definition does not pretend that evil can be conquered. This seems to me to be a necessary understanding in a healthy society.
Grant, I actually think you found the primary weakness in the idea of a department of peace. You wrote: “However, if its a place to teach that violence should be the last choice in conflict, AND teach ways peace is powerful, count me in.”
Teach whom? It is certainly possible to teach individuals ways to avoid violence and to teach ways to settle disagreements but nations? Do supporters of the act envision bringing the Turks and the Kurdish nationalists to– oh I don’t know, Middlebury College for a six week course in conflict resolution? Maybe the Greek and Turkish Cypriots could gather in Miami and learn to overcome their differences? Then the Sunnis and Shi’ites could learn how to get along too. The mind boggles.
It seems to me that what we have here is a nearly perfect example of the philosophic differences that define “liberals” and “conservatives”.
Liberals appear to believe that human nature is infinitely malleable and that we can be educated into perfection. But how? By whom? Who has achieved this, such that he/she can pass it on to the rest of us? Liberals have a touching belief in the benevolence of government (at least in their hands) and its power to gently guide us into the paths of righteousness.
Conservatives know better. We tend to have a pretty clear understanding of human nature. We humans are a mix of good and bad, rationality and irrationality, dreams, drives, and desires that may or may not be healthy. Humans are fallen creatures (to put it in Christian terms); governments are made up of people; ergo, governments can be no better than people are. But humans with power are always, potentially, more dangerous than ordinary citizens.
It seems critical to me to understand human nature, in order to understand what is possible and what is desirable when it comes to government. This proposal does credit to the hearts of those who want such a department but it does not hold up, I don’t think, when looked at in the light of history, or through the lens of anthopology, psychology, etc.
April 7th, 2007 08:55
Lily,
Falling back upon the standard accusations against liberals and touting the virtues of conservatism doesn’t help here. It simply continues stereotypes.
Rather than look at things in terms of “good and evil”, which could be served by both peace and war, let us look instead at the human drives of cooperation and competition. Cooperation is always a peaceful endeavor, while competition can be both peaceful and non-peaceful (capitalistic trade vs. armed conflict in the securing of natural resources, for example).
As humans, we are driven by both altruistic and competitive motives. These motives also drive governments. With this in mind, a Department of Peace could serve to encourage cooperation and non-violent competition. This would not eliminate the Department of Defense, but it would change its role in our society. Our military would have to shift its goal from being the fist of imperial aggression to the power to prevent armed conflict.
Done properly, a Department of Peace could go a long way in reducing armed conflict, spreading democracy, and improving our image in the eyes of the world. Not a bad use of tax dollars in my view.
April 7th, 2007 09:59
Hi Lily-
I don’t think you should worry about getting “your thoughts all together.” I think you invariably state your views clearly and logically. : )
That said, I agree with Brian’s point about stereotypes: “It seems to me that what we have here is a nearly perfect example of the philosophic differences that define ‘lliberals’ and ‘conservatives’. Liberals appear to believe that human nature is infinitely malleable and that we can be educated into perfection.”
To me, that’s sweeping generalization and inaccurate. I don’t think I’ve personally heard anyone on any point of the ideological spectrum suggest perfection is attainable for humans…I think one of the aspects of humanity IS imperfection.
But that doesn’t mean we settle for less. I always want to strive for, at least, “better.” Do we really want things to stay as they are…or even get worse? On a purely individual level, it’s against our personal self-interest to perpetuate warfare.
There are plenty of liberals who understand human nature. Most of the psychologists I know are at that end of the ideological spectrum and are not blind to human imperfection. Even laypeople understand. Many, many of the memebers of the Quaker meeting we’ve starting attending have been there for years and work toward the traditional Quaker goal of peace. They are far from blind to human nature…some are downright pessimistic, but that doesn’t stop them.
I realize that the idea of a Department of Peace is a huge conceptual shift but, in light of world tensions, should at the very least be explored and not dismissed without due consideration.
Susan
April 7th, 2007 10:57
I will grant that I have generalized the differences between the liberal outlook and the conservative *but*, like all true generalizations, they help us organize our thoughts.
Neither of you has grappled with my major point that an endeavor such as we are descibing here is inherently flawed conceptually and must, therefore, be dangerous (wasteful, too) on several levels, too.
April 7th, 2007 11:42
Lily,
Generalizing groups into unsubstantiated and false categories does not help organize thoughts. Your generalization was that since liberals do not understand human nature, the liberal notion of a Department of Peace does not therefore account for the realities of human nature. That is not an argument to be countered, that is begging the question.
My initial comment was to point out that “good and evil” was not an applicable framework on this issue, since it is about cooperation vs. competition. A Department of Peace could be made to work in that framework, just as our legal system and our adherence to the rule of law encourages peaceful interactions among individuals. This does not work in all cases, hence the need for police to deal with those who fail to adhere to law. The principle works on an individual level, and I see no reason why it would not work on an international level.
You seem to cite conflicts such as sunni vs. shia as “proof” that a Department of Peace would fail. This does not support your argument on two levels:
1. It assumes that sunni and shia could never exist peacefully. This is false, since they have had periods of peace historically. Also, the sunni/shia conflict parallels the Catholic/protestant conflict, which, like the sunni/shia conflict has had periods of violent aggression over minor differences of dogma. However in most modern countries, the Catholic/protestant conflict has vanished. It has simply become a non-issue. To argue that the same resolution cannot occur between sunni and shia is to deny history.
2. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that since peace cannot (and perhaps should not) always be the answer, a Department of Peace would serve no purpose. The same argument could be applied to our legal system. Since not everyone will adhere to the rule of law, and since the law does in some cases do harm to individuals, there should therefore be no legal system. Essentially what you are defending is anarchy between nations. Why not then argue for total anarchy?
Granted, I don’t think that is the stance you want to defend. However, if you want to argue that peace is a valid approach on an individual level, but not between nations, you must lay out why it fails between nations. Specifically, you would need to outline why a Department which would strive to extend peaceful competition such as which exists between the U.S., Europe, China, etc. to all nations is somehow flawed and dangerous.
April 8th, 2007 00:39
I would prefer to see an International Peace Agency as part of the State Department. Whether that or as a Cabinet-level department, however, any such organization would be at the mercy of whoever is president. Under our current president and vice president, it would be as welcome and well supported as poison ivy in a nudist camp.
What I would like to see a peace agency do is basic research into the root causes of war, especially elective war (i.e., Vietnam and Iraq, as opposed to World War II).
For example, I believe that in a still dangerous world, we need a strong military and capable intelligence. We need these things both for deterrence and to protect and defend us when deterrence fails.
And yet I think that the very availability of plenty of well-trained, well-equipped, highly motivated military forces, with all the modern technological bells and whistles, tempts some presidents to seek conquest or to opt to shoot first and ask questions later .
I think we need to know more about when that has happened and how it works. I think we also need to know more about the relative ease with which people who are in no danger of being sent to war — particularly those with no military service in their resumé — and little or no danger of having family members sent to war, can send other people to war, send other people’s friends and loved ones to war.
I think it would be helpful to delve at least the potential temptation to initiate a military adventure on the part of a president who’s slipping in the polls, who might want to distract voters from some gaffe or setback ahead of his re-election campaign.
I would like for some capable scholars to look into how much, if any, pro-war impetus originates with corporate interests and investors sure to profit greatly from war.
I would like to see careful examination of the kinds of threats our country is chronically blind to and/or ill-prepared to fight, and how and why. I’m thinking of China, of terrorist attacks and protracted guerrilla warfare here.
I would like to see a comprehensive study of wars that lost congressional and public support, and how, and why.
Once those things were done, maybe this organization could start looking at hotspots around the world, examining how and why they pose a war threat to us or to others. Could try to determine the best means of trying to avert wars, including between other countries and not necessarily directly involving our country.
All this information might over time help prevent some wars. It also might help us wage war more sensibly and effectively if all else fails.
I don’t think a Peace Departemtn that weighs in or militates against military action at Cabinet meetings would be worth much or last long. I don’t think its mere existence would change anything.
I don’t say that because the idea is new or represents change. Actually, it’s not so new. I recall the idea being discussed in the late Vietnam War era or postwar era. I know Rep. Dennis Kucinich said in his 2004 presidential campaign that if he was elected, he would seek creation of a Department of Peace.
The skepticism I have arises out of a pretty good understanding of our system, how it works and what our presidents, senators and representatives are like.
April 8th, 2007 20:50
Hi S. W.-
I agree that it would be difficult to have a well-functioning Department of Peace; I see it as such a fundamental psychological shift.
I didnt’ remember it, but I’m not surprised that Kucinich advanced this idea in his 2004 campaign since name is on the current bill.
And you’re right, it’s not a new idea…like many “new” ideas, it’s just coming around again. In case folks didn’t get around to reading the article I cited:
” In fact, the idea dates back to the birth of the nation. Benjamin Rush, one of the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, wrote a famous and controversial essay, “A Plan for a Peace Office for the United States.”
Rush, who was widely viewed as a gadfly, argued that a secretary of peace would help balance the impulses of the War Office (renamed the Department of Defense in 1949).”
Everything old is new again.
Susan
April 9th, 2007 13:53
Brian: Your whole response illustrates my point. You express the triumph of hope over history; of hope over experience. You wrote: “The principle works on an individual level, and I see no reason why it (i.e. peaceful interactions among individuals/cooperation vs competition) would not work on an international level.”
Because it never has. How is the international role of this new department ultimately different that the role that the League of Nations and then the UN were supposed to play? Think about why the UN has failed so spectacularly in so many ways and you may understand the naysayers better.
In any case, as long as the reward for conflict is greater than any reward for “getting along”, there will be conflict. Then there is the small matter of us (the United States) telling others how they ought to act. Why would this be seen as anything other than us butting into the affairs of others?
Your number 2 response doesn’t correspond to anything I actually am thinking or arguing, so I won’t go there. I will probably make things worse.
SW you wrote “The skepticism I have arises out of a pretty good understanding of our system, how it works and what our presidents, senators and representatives are like.”
Yes! They are like … you and me. They are human beings. They have ideals. They have hopes and dreams. They make mistakes for both good and not so good reasons. Like them, I am certainly not perfect. Like them, I am a child of my time and culture; conditioned by my education, the language I speak, the economic class I was born into and shaped by the experiences and biases inherent in being a child of the later 20th century in the United States.
I like to think that I would always do the right thing but I am not a big enough fool, to bet the farm on it. I know myself, all too well.
April 9th, 2007 16:56
Lily wrote:
This striking statement is delivered with a telling lack of examples. Meanwhile, encouraging examples to the contrary are not hard to find.
After a second round of learning the hard way, Germany has managed to get along with France, Poland and other neighbors well enough that there’s been 62 years of peace and cooperation. And now we have an ascendant European Union.
Irish Catholics and Protestants have been getting along for nearly a couple of decades now. And lo and behold, Israel and Egypt have kept the hatchet buried for about a quarter century.
These were all hard-case, long-running trouble areas, so I see the progress as impressive.
April 9th, 2007 17:03
Lily also wrote:
That the U.N. isn’t perfect but that doesn’t mean it can’t be or hasn’t been useful and effective. U.N. forces managed to quell the violence in the former Yugoslavia a few years back, without losing a single U.N.-affiliated soldier, as I recall.
April 9th, 2007 17:11
Lily, your response to my comment leaves me somewhat puzzled. I wrote in some detail about a particular approach which, if adopted by a new Peace Department or agency, could be extremely helpful and worthwhile, at least in my opinion.
I deliberately mentioned my skepticism at the end, and only then in the context of such an agency adopting very different approach:
So, to clarify, I think how worthwhile a Peace Department or agency could be depends on the mission it’s given and how it operates. The devil isn’t in the underlying concept, but rather in the details.
April 9th, 2007 17:44
Hello all,
I share the skepticism at yet another U.S. government department doing “good” for people, but given the relatively small cost, I’m still willing to roll the dice and see if a department of peace might actually get something done.
Lily, I have to question some of your assumptions in your comments to this post.
I can’t really say much concerning your characterization of liberals beyond the fact that I THINK you would consider me and most of the folks in my life to be liberals, and we simply do not fit your generalization. This is not to say that such fuzzy-headed, “lets just be friends and live on the milk of human kindness” thinking does not exist. I simply state that this is a stereotype utterly unsupported in my own experience. To speak entirely for myself, I am a deep and unrepentant cynic. I do not see the idea of a department of peace as anything other than an utterly pragmatic and results oriented endeavor and would only support it on these terms.
I would agree to some degree with your characterization of human nature, but I don’t see how that characterization renders a department of peace as either Pollyanna or irrelevant.
I believe that humans can be loving and caring wonderful creatures, but who really cares? Most of the time we are not, and the ability to behave so seems to decline as we congregate in larger and larger groups. So forget goodness. What really matters is self-interest. Remember, this is a liberal talking.
Here’s the thing. Peace serves the self-interest of most people and war runs directly counter to that same interest. This is what I would have a department of peace teach. Forget the milk of human kindness. Teach the following:
Human self-interest focuses on self, family, community and country. A department of peace would do two BROAD things:
a) Demonstrate that peace is the most effective way to satisfy the majority of those needs, most of the time.
b) Demonstrate that war often either a) destroys the possibility of satisfying those needs or b) is a profoundly costly and inefficient way to address them. This is because once a war starts; the original cause gets largely buried in emerging self-interest tied to the war itself. This is largely what is happening in Iraq with the Sunni and Shia. The story is the same over and over. Individuals on both sides suffer losses on an individual level and so then need to avenge those losses. The vengeance overrides virtually all other aspects of self-interest and perpetuates and expands the war until other aspects of self-interest reassert themselves or some other factor ends the war.
Lily, the point on which I really have trouble is your characterization of history. One fundamental truth of history is that peace wins. Forget hope. Peace wins because it supports self-interest. Look at the examples in western history. The first that comes to mind is the European Union. It exists not because the French and Germans now love each other, but rather because the EU serves the self-interest of its members. It is rife with both problems and conflict, but can anyone honestly envision another European world war? Brian pointed out the profound parallels between the almost innumerable Catholic and Protestant conflicts in the west and the Sunni/Shia conflicts in Islam. Peace won in the west and it will win in Islam. The only question is how long the conflict will last and what it will cost. Can anyone envision another Civil war in the US? Regardless of how we may anger each other, we recognize that armed conflict would destroy us all.
These are by far not the only examples, and if you like I will cite others. Lily, we can argue all day about the utility of a department of peace, but on this last point I think you just miss the boat. Sooner or later peace wins. And it does so not because it depends on any notion of goodness, hope or altruism. Peace wins because it is much more likely to give us what we want over the long haul. I would have a department of peace teach this.
April 9th, 2007 18:00
Actually, those hard cases you cite, SW, support my point, I think. In the case of Egypt and Israel, once it became more profitable to make peace instead of war, they made peace (and the uneasy status quo is maintained by huge infusions of cash from us, if I am not mistaken).
If its enemies ever start prevailing, Egypt will join them in fighting Israel quicker than I can gulp Hamaanstaschen. And I can eat them fast! I don’t think I see anything in Egypt’s current state of affairs that leads me to believe that its radicals wouldn’t gladly push it into war, if they thought they could win.
Likewise, Poland, Germany and France weren’t talked into peaceful coexistence. They all had to learn the hard way. And peace has, of course, paid off. So, ties have been forged (economic and cultural) that make a future war a losing proposition. There is simply nothing that they can gain from it.
Not everyone wants peace. That is the message we have gotten for the last 40 years and are still getting loud and clear from the Middle East. How long will we pretend not to hear it? Let’s not bring up the names of the more recent victims; the Danny Pearls or Nick Bergs.
Do you recall the name of Leon Klinghoffer? If so, can you tell me that the sort of “men” who could shoot an elderly man in a wheelchair and throw him from a ship into the sea, could be moved by peace talk? Do you think that anything has changed in the 22+ years since that incident (one of many dozens, if not hundreds
Would that late, great man of peace, Yasser Arafat, have given back some of the millions he diverted and stole from the Palestinians, if we had just sat him down for a heart - to - heart talk? I could multiply examples but it shouldn’t be necessary. We are not dealing with people who share our core values. The notion that they can be talked into peace strikes me as preposterous. I think it shows much more respect for human nature to be prepared to fight, even as we pray and work for peace. This is what I mean by keeping human nature at the forefront of our minds when we look for solutions to human problems.
Oh—I see you have posted some more, SW. Well, I don’t exactly know how to respond. I read what you wrote, I just don’t think the approach you have outlined offers anything new, except in adding another government bureaucracy to waste our money. We already have people doing all those things (research into the wheres, whys and hows of conflict) in our universitites.
Now let me hasten to add, that these are my musings. If and when we ever get to a public debate on the proposal, then I will get to hear lots more and lengthier arguments for and against. Then I will see what I think.
April 10th, 2007 01:34
Grant wrote:
How, exactly, does this striking statement apply to the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War and the two world wars?
I think your statement is too heavily influenced by the Korean conflict, Vietnam and President Bush’s Iraq quagmire, to which it applies all too well.
April 10th, 2007 01:57
Lily, if you somehow drew from what I’ve said that I think everyone wants peace, let me reassure you that’s not the case at all. That said, I fail to see what bearing it has on this discussion.
Plenty of time, money and effort have gone into studying the criminal mind and criminal behavior. The work has helped law enforcement be more effective and efficient. None of that undertaking was predicated on some notion criminals really don’t want to do bad things to innocent people.
While I’m on the subject of criminality, what better term describes what was done to poor Klinghofer? Warfare? I don’t think so.
One reason I would like to see a Peace Department study the things I’ve mentioned is to help clarify some basic concepts, including what differentiates war from criminality.
Again, if there’s some portion of what I wrote that makes you think I believe talking to Arafat would’ve made him do the right thing, please point it out specifically.
Regarding your contention universities are already doing all the studies I mentioned, is that perhaps a broad and dismissive assumption or do you have examples of such studies that have been or are being done?
April 10th, 2007 13:22
Well, SW, I really wasn’t trying to be dismissive—I was just trying to make the case that there is nothing in this proposal that is new, beyond the establishment of yet another government department. Your good idea for approaching the problem is actually being fulfilled in our universities. There are far too many Peace Studies programs out there for me to list them all but here are a few:
Georgetown
University of Colorado
Colgate Univ.
UWisc-Milwaukee
University of North Texas
Some with their publications:
Cornell
If you want to take a look at more such programs, you can google “peace studies” “university programs”. It is really quite interesting to see what they are trying to do.
Grant, it is perfectly possible that I am just plain wrong. But I honestly don’t think human history gives us any reason to think that conflicts will cease, until we learn from bitter experience that they must.
April 10th, 2007 16:54
Lily, those are very good links. For that matter, I didn’t doubt some such work is going on at universities. I’m not sure the fact that it is necessarily negates any good a Peace Department or agency might do, however.
April 14th, 2007 17:29
Hi all,
It seems that everyone agrees we will always have conflict and war because we are human. So what does that mean, then, that we should throw our hands into the air and say “Screw it, we’re toast anyway, so why bother trying for peace?”
The psychological shift is important because it would provide a new opportunity for thinking outside the current framework we currently have.
That said, I would also say that a “Department of Peace” will probably not work because the politicos will be too busy making the DOP look like a bunch of pot-head hippies (dopes - get it?) who don’t understand the “real” world, and the DOP members would probably engage in their own posturing against the “war mongers.”
I dont think it’ll work because our political system is already so entrenched in its own box. It won’t be able to see its way out.
But that isn’t to say that those proponents of a DOP shouldn’t try.
How’s that for noncommitment?
April 15th, 2007 10:25
I certainly understand the frustration with the status quo and the wish to do something to change the way things are. However, feel good “government” solutions (regulations, laws, depts, etc.) that are not solutions at all do nothing but breed contempt for the government and waste money and resources.
Creating any government agency before figuring out just what it will do is putting the cart before the horse. And I put the emphasis on *do*. Government is not academia. The members of academia can sit around contemplating their psychedelic navels and proposing feel good initiatives all day long without doing harm. Government cannot.
The bullet points that Susan listed in her post are, it seems to me, propositions that need to be defined and argued. They are not a clear mission statement which is (or ought to be) the sine qua non of any government agency.
For instance: this DOP is to ““hold peace as an organizing principle”. What does that even mean? That is the default position of all agencies with the exception of the Dept of Defense which must have the possibility of war in sight at all times.
Further, the DOP is to “endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights”. If this means domestically, this is already in place. Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and we continue to work towards full implementation.
If, however, we mean that the department will do this abroad… well, how? Isn’t that what the UN was for? Why would we act alone? What makes anyone think that our “input” would be welcome?
Then the dept. is to: “develop policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict.”
Who is the audience for these policies? Do they get any say in their development? How does one intervene “non-violently?” If we are not invited in to mediate, do we go in anyway and force everyone to get along? If not, then what good do these policies do?
And then there is the likely collision with the legislative branch of government…
Someone needs to turn the oven back on and stick this idea in. It is only half-baked.
April 15th, 2007 19:13
Hi all-
I am not necessarily advocating a Department of Peace, but I think specifically addressing peace in this day and age is worthwhile. Trying to incorporate such a department into the current governmental structure would be monumental, considering differing philosophies. I could well see “both” sides posuring “us” against “them” instead of looking for ways to function effectively.
The bullet points I listed were not identified as the mission statement of the Department; they were highlights from the article I read. I really don’t agree that the idea is half-baked. The link I listed in the post (Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act) contains, among other things, the entire text of the act. Agree or disagree with it, but those advocates have thought it through extensively.
Susan
April 15th, 2007 21:47
Actually, they are among the items listed as the mission of the Department. The text of the act makes stunningly clear how ill-thought out the Dept. is. It’s mission is all over the board and duplicates efforts undertaken both by federal and state agencies; they range from “advocating for battered women to providing peace curricula for schools, to solving gang crime and meddling in international affairs. It is, a mess, in other words.
April 17th, 2007 16:18
So, on the other end of the spectrum, how is anyone feeling about the new position of “War Czar?”
April 17th, 2007 17:05
I maybe contributing to post drift here, but I want to respond to Lily’s characterization of the text of the act as stunningly ill thought out. While that may be so, you would not believe how many legislative enactments are revisited year after year for furtehr corrections and restatements. So many things that government does are equally ill-thought out. The peerless example being the USA Patriot Act. Need more be said? IT is my professional experience that much of law is like sausage. We all eat the end product, but most of us would rather not pry deeply into the makings.
Too , to Nick , in re: “war czar” Isn’t that the Secretary of Defense? I have not seen/heard about a new post to coordinate war policy. Did I miss something large here?
April 18th, 2007 03:17
A bit of a tangent… but here is an interesting article by Jeffrey Sachs, called “Winning the Peace” —
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sachs119
Among other things, he says,
We are seeing again and again that a foreign army, whether NATO’s in Afghanistan, America’s in Iraq, Israel’s in occupied Palestine, or Ethiopia’s in Somalia, may win a battle, or even a war, but never the peace. Peace is about dignity and hope for the future. Military occupation saps dignity, and grinding poverty and economic disarray sap hope. Peace can be achieved only with a withdrawal of foreign troops, and the arrival of jobs, productive farms and factories, tourism, health care, and schools. Without these, military victory and occupation quickly turn to ashes.
The United States government has proven itself blind to these facts.
He goes on to point at some ways to improve things at a systemic level. He doesn’t try to counter the pathological behaviours that underlie much destruction. And he doesn’t suggest what form of bureaucracy would be needed to implement his suggestions. For me, a Dept of Peace raises doubts and reservations in my mind.
The recent killings at Virginia Tech bring sadness and worry. Destruction, whether at an individual level like this, or at the national level of war, often has its roots in disturbed, delusional or stressed individuals. Sad times for all of us, alloyed by a glimmer of relief for the restrictive gun laws here in Australia.
April 18th, 2007 06:55
Your restrictive gun laws, however, leave you at the mercy of those who don’t care about your laws. When citizens are unarmed, they are helpless sheep. We have newspapers here. We know about the rising rates of crime in all places with such laws.
It is no accident that England is damned near uninhabitable thanks to the freedom of thugs to roam the streets terrorizing law-abiding citizens. One thinks about the farmer, who after having been burglarized three times, finally shot the very same burglars on their fourth visit in defense of his property and went to prison for it. This is of more than passing interest to me, as my nephew has accepted a job in London and I fear for his safety.
Crimes like the ones at VT are horrible beyond any belief but had any of the teachers or students been armed, the outcome might have been a whole lot less bloody. An armed student did end such a spree at another school not more than a few years ago.
April 18th, 2007 17:54
Well, you might have newspapers, but they don’t seem to be reporting facts.
Look here — http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
for a handy chart showing homicide rate per capita for 62 countries. The UK ranks 46th, while the US ranks 24th - right up there between Bulgaria and Armenia. The homicide rate in US is three times the rate in UK or Australia. So the odds are your nephew will be three times safer in the UK than in the US.
Australian citizens are unarmed and are by NO MEANS helpless sheep. Of course, if I thought that half the crazy people in the country could get a gun with ease, I might feel like a helpless sheep. That wouldn’t cause me to arm myself - it would cause me to remove the weapons from the others.
In a sane, healthy society, there is no need for citizens to carry weapons.
April 18th, 2007 18:45
We aren’t just talking about murder. We are talking about rape, armed robbery, burglary etc. These are all crimes with which thugs terrorize people. My nephew has been a grad student in New York City for the last 2 years and neither he nor anyone of his acquaintance has had any problems. This was not true during his 2 month internship in London…
An armed citizenry can protect itself. Unarmed citzens can’t.
April 18th, 2007 20:04
Citizens in a civil society do not need to arm themselves.
The US has a very poor record on ‘civil society’ so, of course, you want to arm up. Just don’t go around saying that this is the ideal and everyone else should do it too.
Also, Lily, it’s not wise to extrapolate views about safety in a whole nation from the experience of one individual (and his aquaintances) over a couple of years. I can easily counter your single example with mine (daughter living in Birmingham for past 6 months with no incidents). You would be much better informed if you did a bit of research and looked at nation-wide evidence.
I don’t put much faith in news media to report evidence - they always have a line to push and they choose the evidence that supports their line.
You can prefer to think you and your family should carry guns at all times, but I think the arguments and evidence that are used to support this view don’t carry much weight. There is no evidence I can find that countries that restrict gun ownership have higher crime rates.
April 18th, 2007 20:53
Hello all,
Just need to say that as someone who spends a great deal of time on college campuses, the LAST thing I want to even think of dealing with an armed student or faculty body. Over time more guns leads to more dead and maimed people. Not fewer. The tragedy as V-Tech in no way changes this fact.
Lily if you really want to talk about this, I’d love to. Would you consider writing a post on it? I will certainly disagree with you, but I’d really love to hear your argument.
April 18th, 2007 21:49
I am still trying to find the time to write my next Alabama post, Grant!
I won’t say that I am not tempted but it also seems to me that most everything that can be said both pro and con gun control has been said. It might be useful to look at some statistics about the number of crimes that have been prevented because someone was armed… that and the fact that crime is falling in states with concealed carry laws…
Oh drat, I am starting to write the post. Must… resist… must get back to work … must … mus… mu…
April 19th, 2007 00:24
Here’s some useful data….
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun
It shows the proportion of homicides committed by firearm for each US State. It ranges from Delaware (80%) to South Dakota (33%). I wonder how this matches up with number of guns per capita? Or some other relevant stats?
It’s a wide spread across States, so something is making a difference. Perhaps a Dept of Peace would do some analysis that could pinpoint the causes. I suspect there are already lots of Universities and Govt Depts doing similar studies, as someone said above.
April 19th, 2007 02:00
Lily, I came across this NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper by Mark Duggan found this –
“About one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership.”
The reviewer says that Duggan “examines whether legislation that allowed individuals to carry concealed weapons had an important impact on the crime rate. He shows that this legislation did not lead to a substantial increase in gun ownership, nor did it reduce crime relatively more in counties with high rates of gun ownership. This latter finding suggests, Duggan writes, “either that gun owners did not increase the frequency with which they carried their guns or that criminals were not deterred by the greater likelihood that their victims would be armed.” Taken together, his results suggest that Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation did not have an important effect on the rate of gun ownership or on the crime rate.”
http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html