[Oe List ...] peace makers

[Colleen Smith]

I copied this info from another list  I subscribe to.   Thought it would 
be of interest to others.
Colleen Smith
Denver
There are currently 53 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives 
for a  Cabinet Level Dept. of Peace (HR 1673).  See their names here: 
http://www.dopcampaign.org/endorsements.htm  It is striking to me that 
none (ZERO) of these names are those of Republicans.  In the past there 
have been prominent Republican peacemakers like Harold Stassen, Sen. 
Mark Hatfield (OR), Jeannette Rankin (Rep. from Washington State; first 
woman elected to the U.S. Congress--before women even had the right to 
vote in all states; only member of Congress to vote against the U.S. 
entering BOTH WWI and WWII!), and, to lesser extent President Eisenhower 
(after being Allied Commander in WWII).  Pres. Gerald Ford, after he 
left office, has often worked with Pres. Jimmy Carter and the Carter 
Center on peace works.  But now, not only has the GOP apparently been 
captured by fundamentalists and those who love tax cuts more than fiscal 
responsibility, but apparently ANY work for peace is seen as 
"un-Republican" if not "un-American."  I don't think we saw this low a 
support for peacemaking among Republicans even during the McCarthy era 
when peace groups were constantly investigated as possible fronts for 
Communism!  What gives?  It used to be said that Republicans get the 
U.S. into Depressions and Democrats get us into wars.  Now, Republicans 
are getting us into both!
    The Dept. of Peace legislation would create a cabinet that would:

    * Hold peace as an organizing principle in society
    * Endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles and to
      expand protection of human rights
    * Strengthen non-military means of peacemaking
    * Work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed
      conflict, use field-tested proactive peace programs, and develop
      new structures in nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful
      resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict
    * Address matters both domestic and international in scope
    * Submit to the President recommendations for reductions in weapons
      (especially weapons of mass destruction) and make annual reports
      to the Pres. on the sale of arms from the USA to other nations,
      with analysis of the impact of such sales on the defense of the
      USA and how such sales effect peace
    * Encourage development of initiatives from local communities,
      religious groups, and NGOs

    What about Republican ideology would make such a Dept. unwelcome?  
The GOP isn't supposed to like "big government," so it usually opposes 
new bureacracies, but it had no trouble approving the HUGE Dept. of 
Homeland Security (so far, an absolute boondoggle, draining away money 
and civil liberties and doing very little to protect the public that I 
can see!).  Moreover, the proposed DOP would work with 1% of the 
Pentagon budget and, if its efforts are successful, it will create the 
conditions that allow much reduction of the "Defense" budget without 
reducing national security.  Surely that fits with Republican "small 
govt." philosophy?  Republicans are supposed to be pro-business and 
peace is far better for the economy. (Yes, I know, some people always 
profit by war and militarism, but one can show using standard economic 
analyses that peace is far healthier for an economy.  See, e.g., Ronald 
L. Friesen, "War and Peace in Economic Terms," in Teaching Peace:  
Nonviolence and the Liberal Arts, ed. J. Denny Weaver & Gerald 
Biesecker-Mast ( Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).  Friesen uses standard 
economics textbooks in making his argument so this is an analysis that 
should appeal to Republicans--it doesn't require a socialist or 
anti-globalization mentality which would make even more radical 
proposals.)   Shouldn't Republicans welcome approaches that allow them 
to remain "tough on defense" while also remaining pro-business and 
pro-balanced budget by reducing the costs of defending the country?    
Yes, the neo-con movement would lose out with the approaches of a 
D.O.P., but should we conclude that the neo-cons have completely 
captured the GOP?
    What keeps us from trying to create a strong "pro-peace" movement 
within the GOP (even as we seek to revitalize the Democrats and give 
them more vision and more appeal without becoming Republican-lite)?  I 
know that many Mennonites are Republican (although I don't quite 
understand why) and I know that traditionally many Quakers have been 
Republican, too (not counting weird cases like Richard Nixon)?  So, why 
wouldn't it be possible for the Republicans among the peace folk to push 
GOP Congresspeople to support creation of the Dept. of Peace?
    I don't plan on leaving the Democratic Party, but this will take a 
bi-partisan effort.  Let's write all the current co-sponsors and thank 
them and then write our Reps. and Senators (of whatever Party) and urge 
them to co-sponsor the legislation. (Maybe a similar effort could be 
tried in other nations.  What if Canada showed the U.S. the way?  
Canada's military budget is already very low, but a proactive "Ministry 
of Peace" could increase Canadian influence in global affairs while 
making much peace.  Perhaps that would provoke her neighbor to the south 
to jealousy? Just thinking out loud so to speak.)

Michael W-W

Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D.
Outreach Coordinator
Every Church a Peace Church

-- 
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953