OpEd: Peace isn't good for image or bottom line
By Dave Shuster -
St. Cloud Times
January 6, 2008
The Department of Peace and Non-violence is a proposed Cabinet level branch of the federal government that would explore non-violent means of international and national conflict resolution.
In late 2006 the Peace Club of Fairmont, Minn., encouraged the town’s City Council to support its development. Expecting little controversy regarding this symbolic gesture, the five-member council unanimously passed a resolution in favor of the club’s recommendation.
To the council’s surprise, their vote disturbed the peace of Fairmont, angering many of the town’s other citizens who felt a Department of Peace was the last thing the United States needed.
The idea of a Federal Department of Peace and Non-violence is not new, dating back to the inception of our country when framers of the U.S. Constitution, including George Washington, discussed the need for a “Peace Office” to counterbalance the efforts of the “War Office.” As years passed, the concept would occasionally reappear in legislative discussions, only to vanish again due to lack of widespread support.
Recent efforts in Congress to establish a “Peace Office” have been spearheaded by U.S. Rep. Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich’s latest proposed legislation on this issue, H.R. 808: Department of Peace and Non-violence Act, has been endorsed by various human rights groups and a number of major metropolitan areas.
The act
As described in H.R 808, the department would provide recommendations regarding the prevention of armed conflict as well as the protection of human rights on an international level.
Additional responsibilities would include creating effective measures to reduce proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and monitoring the global distribution of weaponry manufactured within the United States. National duties involve the development of policies designed to thwart domestic, ethnic and school violence while analyzing the role of the media in promoting or preventing conflict.
The people of Fairmont who disagreed with Kucinich’s bill and their council’s vote of support were not shy about expressing their dissatisfaction to council members. Accordingly, within two weeks, a hearing was held on the matter to allow those against the resolution an opportunity to express their viewpoint.
Opponents feared the Department of Peace would empower the United Nations to assume governance of the United States. In addition it would embolden our enemies by suggesting our country is afraid to fight. Their remarks held sway. The council withdrew its endorsement.
As H.R. 808 is buried in subcommittee and may never make it back to the floor of the House for a vote, the people of Fairmont can rest easy. The United Nations will have to find another way to usurp our government.
However, even if one questions the validity of this concern, other arguments can be made against the utility of a Department of Peace and Non-violence. Horrific descriptions of individual and national suffering caused by war — provided through the efforts of poets, historians and reporters — have had little effect in diminishing human blood lust. International organizations, such as the defunct League of Nations and the current United Nations, have failed miserably to promote peace and disarmament.
Mistrust wins out
Our penchant for carnage, along with our willingness to accept the distortions and lies of foolhardy leaders as validation for killing, appears unalterable.
Oppression and/or murder of Native, black and Japanese Americans, as well as a host of other ethnic, political and religious groups throughout U.S history led to an array of programs and organizations designed to improve interracial relations and tolerance of diversity.
Despite these efforts, our society can still be convinced by an appropriate stimulus to mistrust or hate any minority group. One needs to look no further than our reaction to the issues of terrorism and illegal immigration.
There are also practical considerations. Our economy needs war. The United States remains the leader in the global weapons market. Military hardware sales generated almost $17 billion revenue in 2006. Analysis has suggested these sales are now prompted by economic factors rather than political or strategic issues. Perhaps this explains why the United States was the only country out of 164 to vote against a U.N. treaty limiting the trade of weaponry. Huge profits are also made by the defense industry in support of our own military endeavors.
Clearly, peace is not good for business.
The United States has an image that must be sustained. By suggesting that some of our policy decisions may be immoral, the Department of Peace and Non-violence would accomplish little beyond casting doubt on our country’s omnipotence and omniscience. This would be counterproductive.
As violence is here to stay, we should embrace it, improve its distribution throughout the world, and revel in our profits.
Only idiots and wimps would want peace on earth.
This is the opinion of Dave Shuster, a St. Cloud resident whose column is published the first Sunday of the month.
