by Robert Parkins
published in Vanguard Magazine, January-February, 2008

When the prime minister seeks advice on military intervention or diplomatic initiatives, the experts of two departments are at his disposal. But when he wants an advocate for peace, where in government does he turn?

“At the macro level, when the prime minister needsadvice when making policy or program choicesaround peace, there is a big vacuum,” Bill Bhanejalaments. “There is no strategic focus for peace ingovernment.”

Bhaneja, a former senior policy advisor for science and technology with Foreign Affairs and International Trade, is part of asmall group of former politicians, public servants and academics who believe an institutional element is missing within government and are calling for a Department of Peace to stand equal with National Defence and Foreign Affairs on matters of international intervention.

This might sound like the marching call for activist organizations.But such grassroots collections, though vocal in theirrhetoric, each tout their own “little piece of peace, but not acoordinated strategy focused on peace in government,” Bhanejasays.

Though the group has its origins in the arms control movement,the Canadian Department of Peace Initiative (CDPI) isnon-partisan. If the late 1960s and early 70s were a period ofgrowth for internal policy guidance – the introduction of economicand science councils, new ministries – today that philosophyhas given way to policy advice by think tank and otherexternal advisors. “What we are saying is that, in the 21st century,we need capacity within the machinery of government toensure new ideas get through,” says Bhaneja, a University of Ottawa Senior Fellow (2003-2007) who began his public servicecareer in 1976.

Among the Society’s supporters are Senator Douglas Roche,former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, Dr. GeraldCaplan, a leading authority on genocide prevention, and MurrayThomson, co-founder of Project Ploughshares. CDPI,which has eight chapters across the country, has also drawnendorsement from some 20 national organizations, includingthe Canadian Pugwash Group, Council for Canadians, Physiciansfor Global Survival, United Church of Canada and theWorld Federalist Movement.

And they are not alone. Over the past four years, an internationalalliance has been gathering steam. To date, 24 countriesincluding Australia, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US have sproutedorganizations calling for the creation of departments or ministriesof peace.

How would such a department work? The CDPI campaignlays out 10 objectives that could comprise its mandate based onthe guiding principles that it would work towards building aculture of peace and developing a capacity for resolution of conflictthrough non-violent means.

To meet those objectives and build Canada’s reputation as a genuinepeace builder, the department would require five key components,what Bhaneja calls five pillars for a sustainable peace: anoffice of peace education; an office of human rights; anoffice of nuclear disarmament; an office of civilianpeace service to provide funding and trainingfor developing Canadian expertisein mediation, resolutionand reconciliation in conflictareas; and an office forconflict resolution inCanada for family orcommunity violence –an acknowledgementto practice at homewhat you preach abroad.”You need the same kind ofbroad expertise to resolve all ofthose things,” he said.

DEVELOPMENT

The department, he adds, would also be a prime destinationfor graduates of academia’s many conflict resolution programsand an obvious way for the government to attract young,activist talent.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Building such a bureaucracy requires building a constituency.Over the past three years CDPI has presented the concept to thepublic and politicians of all stripes. The idea has been endorsedby the Green Party and accepted in principle by the caucus ofthe NDP. Conservative MPs have been reticent but the 22 Liberalswho have heard the pitch have “responded pretty well,”says Bhaneja, who holds a PhD in public policy from the Universityof Manchester. “They soon realize we’re not talkingabout meditation and yoga – this is a serious policy for conflictresolution. We’re trying to make them comfortable with idea,but then it is up to them. This is a long term issue.”Though the concept has not registered any strident opposition,some have questioned the name – Bhaneja admits he’d readilyaccept Department of Peace Building and Human Security orPeace Building and Disarmament – and the need for a full departmentwhen perhaps a secretary of state within Foreign Affairs orthe Privy Council might suffice. Most have revised their opiniononce the initiative is explained, he said. “It’s the absence of thatcore concept that is causing the problem. If you water down theprofile in government, then people forget the issue.”One might expect opposition from the military but Bhanejanotes that some of the strongest proponents of prevention ofkilling are military. Senator Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general who lead the United Nations mission in Rwanda, has notendorsed the initiative but has become one of the best knownadvocates on prevention of genocide and nuclear disarmament. And British general Rupert Smith, former supreme allied commanderof NATO, has made the case that industrialized warfareno longer exists, that conflicts are now timeless and foughtamong the people.

“Smith writes that the western forces have not won any warsince the Second World War unless one considers Grenada andFalklands as wars. Since 1946, he argues, every time Westernnations have become involved in a foreign war, they have, insteadof a swift, decisive victory, got bogged down spending decadesstruggling to bring the conflict to an end. This was the case in theBalkans, the Congo, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, and, of courseVietnam. There are still American troops in Korea, almost 60 yearsafter the US first became involved. So the profound question arises,why do military advisers continue with this cover up, encouragingtheir political masters to seek military solutions to globalconflicts without explicitly making clear the enormity of the costsinvolved,” Bhaneja asked. “In Afghanistan, Gen. Hillier has said itwill take us more than 10 years [to rebuild].”One of the 10 objectives for the proposed department’s mandatewould be providing training for military and civilian governmentpersonnel to administer post conflict demobilizationand reconstruction in war torn societies. The objective is in linewith an argument by Thomas Barnett, a strategic planner andmilitary advisor, and author of The Pentagon’s New Map, to createan American department of global security. He also calls fora division of the US military into a smaller, lethal force capableof waging war and larger, more complex force capable of buildingpeace. “We need a military that will wage peace just as effectivelyas it now wages war,” he writes.Rather than following the military into failed states, Bhanejabelieves a Peace Department’s primary mission would be to wardoff conflict before it begins. “We are advocating that, just as wehave a cadre of foreign service officers, a cadre of developmentofficers and military personnel, we should have a 1000-1500 personcadre of ‘conflict resolvers’ who will work on prevention inCanada and as part of a multilateral UN rapid emergency force.”We were very pleased to see Foreign Affairs introduce the Stabilizationand Reconstruction Task Force, and one hopes thatwill expand. But it shows there is a need. Something is missing ingovernment.”

If the concept seems a challenge for nations born of military conflict, Bhaneja has a counterpoint: “In Nonkilling Global Political Science,author Glenn Paige gives statistical evidence that only 2% ofhuman population has ever killed anyone. And those 2% often havemental health problems. But for 2%, we have built this massivestructure based on fear. It’s a perceived threat from within our culture. That is why it’s so important to have a focal point within governmenton how to develop a culture of peace.When people askhow much a department of peace would cost, we say, just 2% of thesecurity or military envelope. And that’s about $400 million. It canbe done; it’s just a question of political will.”