Principles of Peace gain broader recognition

October 16, 2009

-Deborah Froese

WINNIPEG, Manitoba — What if peace were held as the organizing principle for society? What if non-violent conflict resolution, rather than defence and offence, shaped national and international strategies for peace? What if military “boot camp” for soldiers focussed on intensive training in violence prevention, mediation, and reconciliation instead of physical prowess, aggression and weaponry?

Mennonite Church Canada is taking an active role in promoting a culture of peace, including non-violent conflict resolution, within Canada and abroad. A Private Members Bill tabled in the Canadian House of Commons on Sept. 30, 2009 (Bill C-447) calls for the creation of a Canadian Department of Peace, headed by a Cabinet-level minister. This, in part, results from efforts of the Canadian Department of Peace Initiative (CDPI), a grassroots organization with whom Mennonite Church Canada has partnered in this initiative.

Under the concept of peace as an organizing principle in society, the mission of the Department lists a myriad of actions and principles ranging from non-military peace-making to the development of human potential and the promotion of justice, and the development of a peace-keeping, peace building and peace-making Canadian civil peace service.

Tabled by MP Bill Siksay (Douglas-Burnaby) and seconded by the MP Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt), Bill C-447 447describes the intended department’s work as that which is “dedicated to peace-building and the study of conditions that are conducive to both domestic and international peace.”

“It is a long, long way from being passed in the House of Commons,” says Janet Plenert, Executive Secretary of Mennonite Church Canada Christian Witness – though she is encouraged by the bill. “We know from the experience of the Conscientious Objection to Military Taxation bill that such a bill will likely need to be reintroduced multiple times over many years.”

Despite her pragmatic view of Bill C-447’s potential in its current form, Plenert is hopeful that it will initiate ongoing discussions about peace as a viable alternative to war and a fundamental approach to societal behaviour and response. She says that a strong and vocal grassroots movement supporting the principles of the bill will give it more weight and increase the potential for future implementation.

Bill C-447 arrives at a time when Mennonite Church Canada is taking deliberate steps to bring concepts of non-violent peace into the public arena. Over the past year-and-a-half, General Secretary Robert J. Suderman has addressed the Canadian Council of Churches twice on the topic of “Peace in the Public Square” to favourable response. Delegates to Mennonite Church Canada’s Annual Assembly in June 2009 voted to support a proposal of the same name, which encourages congregations across the country to share the message on a larger, more public scale.

In response to that vote, Mennonite Church Alberta is poised to offer messages of peace on billboards and Light Rapid Transit posters beginning in mid-November 2009. Other tools of communication suggested by Mennonite Church Canada include writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, engagement in Remembrance Day activities that communicate peace as a viable alternative to war, and supporting conscientious objection to military taxation (www.consciencecanada.ca).

“If each congregation initiates one act of peace in the public square over the next four years,” says Suderman, “we will have 1,000 acts of peace.”

Additionally, a new Mennonite Church Canada web site to share ideas and news about making biblical peace a reality is under development.

CDPI is a member of the global movement known as Global Alliance for Department of Peace/Ministries for Peace, with citizen groups in 40 countries, including the USA, UK, Australia, Japan, India, Israel and Palestine who are seeking Peace Ministries. In recent years Nepal, Soloman Islands and Costa Rica have established Peace Departments. Mennonite Church Canada and CDPI hope to see Canada, with its rich peacekeeping tradition, follow in their footsteps.

For more information on Peace in the Public Square, search www.mennonitechurch.ca

By Patricia Philip

Campaigning for a Department of Peace

Little media attention has been

given to the Harper government’s

massive rebuilding of the Canadian

military, outlined in its

Canada First Defence Strategy,

which will allocate $490 billion to

military spending over the next

20 years.

That’s the message delivered

by well-known author and journalist

Linda McQuaig to the

national annual general meeting

of the Canadian Department of

Peace Initiative (CDPI), April

17–19 in Hamilton, Ontario.

In her keynote address, After

Afghanistan: Reinvigorating

Canada’s Role as a Global Peacebuilder,

Ms. McQuaig presented

a chronology of events and facts

to demonstrate just how far Canada’s

government has moved in

recent years from being a world

leader in global peacekeeping to

a nation that has bought into the

U.S. doctrine of war.

The conference, with its theme

this year of Building a Culture of

Peace in Canada and the World,

attracted 40 participants, including

several from the Quebec

Chapter of CDPI, Citoyennes

pour un Ministère de la Paix

(CMP). The CDPI is a federation

of chapters, each having local

autonomy within the framework

of the agreed-upon goal of promoting

a Canadian Department

of Peace.

The conference featured status

reports on various CDPI projects

under way for the past year. An

important session brought delegates

into conversation with MPs

from all political parties (except

Conservatives) on the theme of

Building a Culture of Peace in

Canada and the World. We also

heard from the current initiative

for a Hamilton Culture of Peace

Commission. There is strong

interest at Hamilton’s City Hall

in working actively with peacerelated

groups.

Participants considered CDPI’s

strategic planning and action

plan for 2009-10. While the longterm

goal remains the establishment

of a full Department of

Peace, an interim step will be to

lobby for the creation of a secretary

of state or junior minister

for peacebuilding and conflict

prevention at the federal level.

The conference heard encouraging

news from each region of

Canada that inroads are being

made. Plans are under way to

set up a CDPI branch in Halifax.

One of the biggest challenges is

to engage and increase youth

participation by developing

peacebuilding as a professional

career path. More outreach initiatives

need to focus on electronic

communications as a way of

getting out the message.

Patricia Philip is a member of

the Executive of WFMC Montreal Branch

Published in the National Post, October 1, 2009

OTTAWA — A federal New Democrat has teamed up with a Liberal to propose the creation of an army of peace professionals within a new federal department to resolve violent conflicts within Canada and around the world.

The idea was introduced through new legislation tabled Thursday by NDP MP Bill Siksay, seconded by Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis. Siksay said the proposed department of peace could change the role of the Canadian military, but not necessarily replace it.

“In a utopian vision of our world, maybe that will be possible some day but certainly we see this as an area that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves,” said Siksay at a news conference.

“The inclination to seek a non-violent solution to conflict isn’t always the first action that people take in our society and around the world.”

Siksay’s private member’s bill was modelled after a proposal by an advocacy group that suggests Canada needs more trained experts to promote peace in its diplomatic corps as well as in the military.

Bill Bhaneja, a co-chair of the Canadian Department of Peace Initiative, said the proposed department could employ hundreds of professionals who would promote a culture of peace in the government’s policies and actions, as well as help to resolve conflicts in a non-violent way.

“These peace professionals would be different from the diplomats and from the soldiers,” said Bhaneja. “Right now we have suits and boots on the ground, but we don’t have people who are trained to resolve conflicts at the cutting edge where the problem is taking place.”

He said his group has also submitted its proposals to the Harper government which replied it was satisfied with existing policies and practices.

Siksay said it was unlikely that the legislation and its proposals would get adopted in the near future in Parliament since it is a private member’s bill. Government legislation gets priority for debates in Parliament while opposition bills are debated in order based on a random draw.

But Bhaneja said he was encouraged by recent meetings with Liberals and New Democrats who appear to be more interested by the establishment of a ministry of peace, following other countries such as Nepal, Solomon Islands and Costa Rica.

When I tell Gus I’ve arranged a discussion at the Ottawa Shambhala Centre about forming a federal Department of Peace, my friend’s response is less than enthusiastic: “Great. Just what we need. Another bureaucratic sinkhole to swallow taxpayer dollars.” That’s Gus for you. He meditates, and has been my meditation student for the past several years, but he’s also a no-nonsense guy who always says exactly what he thinks. In his early forties, barrel-chested, his 6-foot-3 frame topped off by thinning red hair, Gus spent eight years in the military before leaving it to train as a physicist. He’s hardheaded, he doesn’t suffer fools gladly, and scientific logic is his religion. Even when I disagree with him I have a grudging respect for his opinion, because he’s often right.

I’m not surprised that Gus won’t come to the meeting with me, but I am surprised by the size of the crowd. I’d expected maybe a dozen wild-eyed idealists, but there are at least 50 people present — all reasonably sane-looking and including a former mayor of Ottawa. Seniors, boomers, yuppies, DINKs, loners and members of Generations X, Y and Z are all represented. Many have never before entered the Shambhala Centre.

The fellow giving the talk is Bill Bhaneja. In his sixties, slim and relaxed, he’s a retired diplomat from the Canadian Foreign Service and was until recently a senior research fellow at the University of Ottawa. He was born in India, and as a child once saw Mahatma Gandhi at one of the open-air, multifaith prayer meetings that the great man held every evening in New Delhi. Bhaneja appears earnest yet practical minded; serious, but with a glint of gentle humour in his eyes.
One of the first things he says is that the proposed Department of Peace will entail “no new money.” I’m sceptical at first: How will that work? The idea, I learn, is to draw together the many existing peace- and justice-related portfolios scattered among seven federal departments, including the obvious ones, such as CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency), Defence and Foreign Affairs, as well as Citizenship and Immigration, Health Canada, IDRC (International Development Research Center) and Justice, and combine them under a single umbrella. The reason: In none of the seven departments is peace given any kind of priority.

Without its own minister, the peace viewpoint usually goes unheard at the Cabinet level. So gathering together all the kindred spirits would give peace its own spokesperson: a senior minister. This new Cabinet member would be in a position to pursue an official mandate of peace and to offer a counterpoint to the views of other departments, such as Defence. As Bhaneja explains, “Presently, there is no such focused advice or viewpoint available inside the Cabinet to countervail the view that conflict can only be resolved through war.”

Two countries have already established Departments of Peace: the Solomon Islands and Nepal. Costa Rica is expected to announce a Department of Peace and Justice this year. Granted, these are not major players. Still, civil society organizations in 35 countries, including the United States, are actively looking at the possibility.

In early 2007, the newly elected U.S. House of Representatives reintroduced a bill to create a Peace Department. In the previous term, over 60 members of Congress had endorsed the bill. Shortly afterward, a political blitz in Washington saw 700 supporters (including luminaries such as Deepak Chopra and author Marianne Williamson) pay 220 visits to representatives and senators in support of the bill.

One fascinating aspect of the U.S. drive is that it’s nonpartisan, with supporters from all parties. The same is true in Canada. The New Democratic and Green parties support the idea in principle, and many Liberal Party MPs have expressed support or interest. Moreover, support in Canada is widespread, and growing quickly; supporters have already formed chapters in 10 major cities. On the long list of official boosters are Lloyd Axworthy, former minister of foreign affairs, and retired senator Douglas Roche, a former Canadian ambassador of disarmament and Conservative MP. Organizations that support the idea include the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Federation of University Women, the Canadian Pugwash Group, a women’s Nobel Peace Laureates organization and the United Church of Canada — the largest Protestant denomination in the country with 3 million members.

Perhaps its most unique policy element is the proposed Civilian Peace Service, a concept that goes well beyond traditional peacekeeping. For many years, Canada has been respected around the world for its blue-helmeted peacekeepers — an idea pioneered by Prime Minister Lester Pearson, the only Canadian ever to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. But the country’s peacekeeping has fallen on hard times. While the number of peacekeepers in the world is currently at a high of about 70,000, Canada’s share has dwindled to a paltry 60 or so. It now ranks below 50th in the world, and its reputation is fading fast. In fact, the country’s police services now provide more peacekeepers than its military does.

Yet Department of Peace supporters stress that in the global arena, peacekeeping tends to work better than war. It may be a messy, chaotic and difficult job, but the conflicts it has staved off, or lessened the impact of, far outnumber its failures. War now seems like an increasingly ineffective method of resolving disputes. In his 2005 book, “The Utility of Modern Warfare,” Rupert Smith, once the deputy supreme commander of NATO, stated that since 1946, every time Western nations have become involved in a foreign war, they’ve become completely bogged down. Instead of achieving a swift, decisive victory, they’ve spent from 15 to 20 years struggling to bring the conflict to an end. This was true in the Balkans, Congo, Northern Ireland, Cyprus and, of course, Vietnam and is true in Iraq and Afghanistan — all infamous sinkholes of money, resources and young lives. Modern wars always seem to end up at the negotiating table only after needless slaughter of soldiers and civilians. Hence the Department of Peace philosophy: Why not negotiate right at the beginning of the process, if possible?

That’s where the Civilian Peace Service would come in — deploying an “army” of perhaps 2,000 negotiators, trained in conflict prevention and resolution, in hot spots around the world. These people would not be development officers, foreign service specialists, soldiers or traditional peacekeepers. They’d be a new breed — peace professionals.

Is the notion of a Department of Peace too idealistic? In a recent Chicago Tribune op-ed, Robert Koehler called the initiative “radical common sense.” He added, “The rationality of peace tends to just sit there — ho hum, what else is new? — while the headlines go off in our faces. Are we doomed to a violent politics, with all its news drama and illusion of instant transformation?” Considering the “suicidal” mechanisms of war and violence that “powerful interests, even government itself, seem locked into,” Koehler views a Department of Peace as a positive step. “It would signal our collective interest in making a start,” he wrote.

Bhaneja says that building peace “will require institutions, not just speeches.” To make it work, he adds, “you have to be an idealist at heart, but a realist in the mind.”

After that first meeting with Bhaneja, I sent Gus materials about the initiative, including its Web address. I didn’t believe he would actually bother to check it out. So I was astonished when, a few weeks later, he sent me an e-mail: “I read recently that you can only change the world by changing your own mind. And right after I read that, I read the documents you sent about the Department of Peace. I’ve gone through them, and I’m convinced. How can I help?”

For more information on the proposed Department of Peace, visit www.departmentofpeace.ca.

MARK FRUTKIN is the author of three books of poetry and seven of fiction, including Fabrizio’s Return, winner of the 2006 Trillium Book Award and shortlisted for the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for Best Book, and Atmospheres Apollinaire, which was shortlisted for the Governor General’s Award, the Trillium and the Ottawa Book Award. He lives in Ottawa.

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.”

Question: In a government, which cabinet ministry has responsibility for the “peace file”?

Answer: Usually none.  Although numerous agencies within a democratic government (including Canada’s) do determine the prospects for peace or war, no single one of them is assigned peace as its specific responsibility. No minister has the “peace portfolio,” and no one is authorized to coordinate the efforts of the various governmental branches.

But that is changing.  Now, in Canada and at least 23 other countries, campaigns are burgeoning for the creation of a “Department of Peace” at the cabinet level. Even in the United States such a bill before Congress has been gathering support. Moreover, in three countries (Nepal, the Solomon Islands, the Philippines and imminently Costa Rica) this innovation is already a reality.

The Canadian proposal, called the “Canadian Department of Peace Initiative,” is jointly coordinated by a former diplomat, Dr. Bill Bhaneja, and Dr. Saul Arbess. Already the campaign has nine chapters (in Victoria, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, London, Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, plus a Canada-wide chapter for youth), including 19 organizations representing 120,000 Canadians — or three million, if you count all members of the United Church.

Proponents of the plan claim that it may not even require new funding — money beyond that already appropriated for ongoing peace-related activities in seven or more federal departments. The proposal would consolidate agencies and/or coordinate policies within these bodies, keeping peace in the forefront of cabinet-level deliberations. Peace is already an issue in policies concerning, e.g., national defence, justice, immigration and citizenship, overseas development assistance, human rights projects, disarmament, peacekeeping and post-conflict peacebuilding projects, and even  social conflicts among communities in Canadian society. Though some departments of government — notably National Defence — have a voice in those decisions, alternative points of view are not necessarily expressed. The minister heading the new Department of Peace would be expected to be a voice for peace.

Activists have fanned out across Canada, promoting the Department of Peace idea to local organizations, many of which have signed on as supporters (e.g. Physicians for Global Survival, Science for Peace, the Canadian Peace Alliance. and the aforementioned United Church of Canada). The campaigners are also visiting their members of parliament, and have secured the approval in principle for the idea from the NDP and the Green Party, plus leading members of other parties, including former Senator Douglas Roche and former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy.

There are critics, of course. Some who have misgivings about the proposal base their skepticism on their doubts that the Harper government will support it. Other skeptics point out that the Department of Peace will always be appointed by, and accountable to, the government of the day. Therefore, they say, the policies of such a department would hardly differ from those produced by Canada’s existing federal structure. If that is the case, then a Department of Peace could only introduce symbolic changes, such as  expressing the Canadian commitment to peace more frequently and authoritatively.

And, say the critics with regret, such changes may be worthwhile — but not greatly so.

The campaigners recognize these arguments, but are more hopeful about the impact their initiative will make. They base their hope on a new innovation within the proposal: Parallel to the Department of Peace there shall be a commissioner who will work closely with an independent advisory body, reporting directly to parliament concerning the issues confronting the department. This advisory group shall comprise members of well-established Canadian civil society organizations known for their ongoing peace work. The commissioner will consult with this group frequently throughout the year, keeping their concerns high on the agenda of the department.

There are already precedents for such civil society advisory groups, e.g. today in the ministry of environment and previously when the Disarmament Ambassador maintained such a consultative group.

Another important innovation in the proposal is this unusual concept: The Department of Peace shall support a new Civilian Peace Service, whose staff will function in conflict zones around the world. Trained for peace work in universities and other institutions, these individuals will obtain professional certification for their expertise in conflict resolution before being sent abroad to help prevent violence, keeping “hotspots” from becoming war zones. The models for such an organization already exist, for several NGO groups already are working abroad, staffed with volunteer peaceworkers.

Finally, the campaigners envision domestic functions to be carried out by the Department of Peace. Not only will it develop a peace education curriculum for all levels, from kindergarten up, but it shall support conflict resolution programs in communities across Canada that are marked by inter-group strife. In all these ways, the department will stimulate a culture of peace throughout Canadian society.

Late in September, Canadian members of the Department of Peace campaign traveled to Japan for a summit conference. Twenty-one delegations, representing all five continents, were present, though a few delegations were refused visas and could not attend. During five days of workshops in Kiserazu, Dr. Arbess and another Canadian delegate, Penny Joy, showed how a Department of Peace would function in relation to other existing ministries. Then the summit moved to other Japanese cities, meeting Diet members, university students, and the public. In Hiroshima Mayor Akiba addressed them, offering encouragement for the project.

Back in Canada, the activists are again visiting politicians and local leaders, spreading the basic ideas behind their campaign. They hope to raise the issue in the debates among candidates during the next election.

Metta Spencer is a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Toronto.

In August 2006, Focus magazine ran an article about the Department of Peace concept, written by Lesley Marian Neilson. The complete article is available to download in PDF.

Citizens in 11 countries are lobbying for government departments dedicated to nurturing conflict resolution.

Lowering our defences:
Instead of keeping peace, how ’bout making it with harmony brigades?

You can count the minutes before calls for more military spending join the general clatter in the current election. But what if there were a countervailing set of pressures? What if instead of demanding a boost for defence, pols felt obliged to press for the diversion of funds to a Department of Peace?

It’s a scenario many anti-war theorists believe is not only credible but critical. It’s time for Canada, they believe, to go beyond traditional peacekeeping and undertake the sophisticated work of conflict resolution and peace-building. These are skills that can’t be learned on the fly but require a department dedicated to nurturing them.

In fact, citizens in 11 different countries including Canada are lobbying their governments for such a change in the traditional way defence and foreign affairs are organized, reports Bill Bhaneja, a retired Canadian diplomat and senior research fellow at the University of Ottawa.

He recalls being embarrassed when European Union NGOs asked him if Canada could contribute a few thousand trained professional peace workers to go abroad. “I said I am not aware of any such Canadian government program,” he says.

Bhaneja believes there’s wide agreement in the conflict-resolution community that what we do with our defence money is obsolete and out of touch with Canadians’ desire to be true global mediators. It’s also partially responsible for botched post-war reconstruction.

“Countries with economic dependence on weapons development and war machinery will instead have to start working for demilitarization, focusing on ways to champion human rights and justice for the marginalized within and outside their borders,” says Bhaneja.

Although the government currently dispenses international aid and promotes disarmament, democracy and human rights, he says, the problem is that these are “buried and accorded low priority” in eight separate federal departments, including Foreign Affairs, National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency and the International Development Research Centre.

“In each of these there is a range of activities, and not all of them are carried out. Foreign Affairs thinks it does peace-building; Defence thinks it does peace-building. Even CIDA thinks its poverty alleviation mandate is peace-building. But there is no focal point, no coherent framework, no integrated approach.”

Organizing a campaign for a bureaucratic change in Ottawa may be a tall order, but Bhaneja has managed to gather some high-powered support. Former Liberal Foreign Affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy is on board, along with ex-senator, writer and chair of the Middle Powers Initiative Doug Roche.

“It’s time to give peace a profile in Canada and concentrate government’s attention on the fundamental values of this country, which are building the conditions for human security and peace,” says Roche from his home in Edmonton. “There is a considerable amount of work being done, but it is time to focus it and channel it.”

Meanwhile, among some non-governmental organizations on the front line of peace lobbying in Ottawa, there is hesitation. Ernie Regehr, a senior policy adviser at Project Ploughshares, worries about the isolation of peace-building in a single department. And he notes that “peace-building and human security have a kind of profile in government that they haven’t had for a long time.”

He concedes, however, that the current impetus for peace promotion in Ottawa may not be strong enough – but wonders whether centralization is the way to go: “Is the pace going to be changed by reorganization, and is that going to galvanize some political will? That is a difficult judgment to make, I think.”

At the same time, Regehr and others have noted that Canada’s self-image as a world peace broker has been tarnished by our counter-insurgency operations with U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

A report written by Regehr and Peter Whelan argues that our level of military expenditure is excessive. Of our $16.3 billion spending on international peace and security, 76 per cent is devoted to defence. “The most prominent threats to [people's security] come from non-military sources such as unfavourable economic, social and political conditions,” the report asserts.

Bhaneja does not see a Canadian department of peace duplicating the diplomatic activities and programs of his former employer, Foreign Affairs. He describes the latter as largely “reactive” to crisis points in the world and not set up to do the kind of long-range planning, research and education required for institution-building in troubled or failed states.

Rather, the former diplomat wants Canada to follow the example of Germany, where the government-supported civilian peace service is funding the training of peace workers in conflict resolution. These people are sent into the field in countries like Colombia to work with such grassroots groups as Peace Brigades International, the Nonviolent Peace Force and the Christian Peacemaker Teams.

The difference is that a national government can train and export non-violent peace workers on a scale that would not be possible with these kinds of volunteer-based organizations, he explains.

Although Bhaneja would not comment on the NATO-led, military-based development missions in Afghanistan (the so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams), he questions the ability of soldiers anywhere to engage in peace-building. “They are in the business of fighting and winning wars,” he says.

Veteran peace worker and trainer Lyn Adamson says peace-building work would receive a major boost with the establishment of a government peace department. “I could certainly see a role for that, absolutely.”

Adamson was formerly with Peace Brigades, which primarily uses small teams of visible international volunteers to accompany local activists in potentially violent circumstances. She’s now on the international board of the Nonviolent Peaceforce, an NGO that envisions sending thousands of experienced, salaried peace workers, not volunteers, into conflict zones instead of troops.

The uncertain fate of the Christian Peacemaker workers taken hostage by an unknown group in Iraq should not be used to dismiss the value of peace-builders in countries that have invited them, says Adamson. “It is inevitable that there will be some loss of life in the non-violent alternative. But to put it in perspective, it should be noted that PBI has sent well over 1,000 team members into the field in such places as Colombia, Indonesia, Haiti and Mexico’s Guerrero and Chiapas regions since 1981 and has not suffered a single fatality.”

NOW MAGAZINE www.nowtoronto.com

METTA SPENCER: It was your idea to create a department of peace within the Canadian government. Tell me about it.

BILL BHANEJA: In meetings of the Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee (CPCC), I’ve been representing Science for Peace in Ottawa. When we discussed the organizing of federal peace programs, it was obvious that a cause of problems being discussed was lack of a clear peace mandate — a coherent mission.

SPENCER: Well, great. And you’re not the only person with such ideas. In the US there’s a similar movement underway.

BHANEJA: Yes, both in the US and the UK. When I was researching for the proposal I also found that in Victoria a working group for a department of peace was thinking along the same lines. Last November at a meeting of the CPCC (which is essentially a committee of NGOs who get together in Ottawa to discuss peace issues and provide input to the government) Hans Sinn approached me. He’s been a founding member of Peace Brigades International and a key member of Coordinating Committee of PBI and Nonviolent Peaceforce Canada. They were to hold civilian peace service consultation in February and had invited practitioners from Germany, the US, and UK. Along with Hans Sinn and Peter Stockdale, I put together a paper for that conference: “Toward a Proposal for a Department of Peace.” Dr. Stockdale chairs the CPCC Working Group on Conflict Resolution.

We see the need for such a department as driven by three imperatives: policy, organizational, and funding. At present, without an overarching commitment to peace, the policy and programs for peace within the federal government remain fragmented and are accorded low priority within the large departments such as the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA, Foreign Affairs, and Department of National Defence (DND). Because of this fragmentation, peace remains a peripheral function rather than a major function. If we had a separate peace department, we’d have a well-articulated short- and long-term strategy on the prevention of conflict instead of just quick reactions to crises, which happen now.

SPENCER: How would you see it situated within the governmental structure? What would its relation be to Foreign Affairs?

BHANEJA: The paper recommends a separate federal department of peace with a cabinet minister, who will naturally interact with all other departments. When an issue arises, an inter-departmental committee is always struck to discuss it. What usually happens is that the department that chairs such a task force or committee has the ultimate say on what should be done. The peace element gets biased toward the priorities of that department. If it’s Foreign Affairs, they put their spin on it. If it’s Defence, they put their spin on it and so on. That’s why we need a full-fledged independent ministry for peace.

The federal government spends nearly $16.3 billion annually on international peace and security through its departments and aid agencies. That’s no small sum! I got that from a study on the security budget that Ploughshares did last year for the government. All that money is coordinated now only through the interdepartmental committees. But the Minister for Peace would have power equal to that of Foreign Affairs Canada, DND, Citizenship, Immigration, Justice, Health Canada, Finance — all those ministries that are managing the peace envelope. Right now, there is no department that’s devoted to fostering the general rule of peace. Today there’s not even a single definition of peace within the government! The focus is on war and terror, and how to alleviate each crisis. There needs to be a program running from beginning to end — from peacebuilding to peacemaking to peacekeeping.

So our proposal has three parts. First, it describes the problem and the reasons for getting a department of peace. Part two looks at the existing Canadian situation in the context of similar initiatives that are taking place in the USA, the UK, and Europe. It calls for citizen participation in conflict resolution work, education, human rights training, and contact with grassroots organizations that spread the culture of democracy.

SPENCER: Excellent. Are the initiatives in the US and elsewhere similar to yours in encouraging citizen participation?

BHANEJA: I don’t know about them all, but certainly since 1999 there is a Civilian Peace Service in Germany which is part of the government programming. The government is involved in the recruitment, training, and placement of personnel in nonviolent conflicts.

SPENCER: Are those personnel NGOs or independent citizens?

BHANEJA: Germany is working with NGOs, who are deployed in Colombia and southeast Asia — Sri Lanka and Indonesia or Thailand. A local organization involved in conflict invites the government to send people to act as witnesses or civilian negotiators.

In the US the movement is driven by a group of people led by Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, whose Bill HR 2459 was tabled in 2001. It now has 51 sponsors in the House. In the UK, MP John P. Macdonald presented a similar bill in October 2003. Many public awareness activities are planned over the next few months. In Washington, the Kucinich group is having an event on September 12.

SPENCER: Yes, I’ve received e-mail invitations to that.

BHANEJA: And not only Kucinich. The broadcaster Walter Cronkite is a key speaker. In the UK, the organizers are having a two-day conference in London on department/ministry of peace activities all around the world from the 18th to 20th of October. We hope that Saul Arbess, who heads the Working Group for Department of Peace in Victoria, will be attending that meeting. Last month they had a successful peace festival in Victoria to promote that.

SPENCER: You know many people in Foreign Affairs Canada. What is their attitude to this proposal?

BHANEJA: We decided not to take it to bureaucrats. The problem is, peace initiatives are handled by four or five departments without any integrated vision for peace. They would never say, “Okay, dismantle us and establish a peace department.” There is money, staff, and a reorganization involved. They will be defensive, so we decided to raise it at the political level. We thought that when the International Policy Review is tabled, we would bring this as one of the options for the government. However, that review got delayed and I don’t know whether there will be public consultations. So we decided to approach MPs in all political parties who are members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We’ve just gone through that phase. The members are giving us feedback, and the proposal has reached the heads of all four parties. We don’t look at it as an NDP, Bloc, or Conservative or Liberal issue. Look at how we are spending this $16.3 billion on peace and security. We feel that MPs should be interested in our proposal to make government accountable for taxpayers’ dollars on peace activities.

SPENCER: The comparison that comes to my mind is to the situation of peace studies in the universities. I used to coordinate a peace and conflict studies program at University of Toronto — an interdisciplinary program that drew on courses which already existed. I have argued all along that until we have an autonomous department of peace studies, we’ll be vulnerable. There are always ways in which peace studies gets compromised; it’s often run by people whose specialty is not peace — political scientists, psychologists, historians, and so on. I see a parallel to what you’re saying. If you have a single department of peace, then people in it will focus on that above all else. Do you also consider that as a parallel situation?

BHANEJA: Yes, precisely. They say, “We all do nothing but peace!” But if that were the case, we wouldn’t have these problems. In our proposal we have presented a model legislative bill for creating the department. It outlines the minister’s general responsibilities, and shows that he will be supported by four assistant deputy ministers, responsible for six branches of operations. These include office of peace education and training; office of domestic activities; office of international activities; office of arms control and disarmament; office of civil resistance and nonviolent conflict resolution — and we have described each of these in detail.

SPENCER: How ambitious!

BHANEJA: Some of these already exist within the government. We’ll bring them out from the places where they are buried. Give it good leadership and have an advisory council representing peace groups and NGOs to assist the minister. Under that organization we would possibly also create a Civilian Peace Service Canada with responsibility for training in nonviolent conflict resolution. When you put all that together, we’re not talking about something for $5 million or $10 million — we’re talking about half a billion dollar program. This is really something to start countering warfare with.

SPENCER: Have you thought about what the relationship might be between this department and the Montreal organization called Rights and Democracy? I don’t know how much money they have to spend. They are encouraging democracy and human rights abroad, but they’re not funding anything like a Civilian Peace Service.

BHANEJA: Most of these organizations say they are doing it on a piecemeal basis. There’s also the Lester B. Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, which provides training to armed forces and others, but there’s no coordinated vision of it all.

SPENCER: Yes, I was there last summer. So you would see it and Rights and Democracy as elements of the department of peace?

BHANEJA: In Canada we have lots of competencies. We have to put them together in such an effective way and develop something more meaningful with an international profile.

SPENCER: What country is now closest to what you have in mind?

BHANEJA: The Nordic countries are extensively involved in peacemaking and have lots of credibility.

SPENCER: Norway gives more than one percent of their GDP to development – besides serving as peacemakers by helping democratic opposition movements in places like Burma and Sri Lanka. So impressive!

BHANEJA: I agree with you wholeheartedly. We have to get back to the targets that Lester B. Pearson set for this country in the 1970s. We’re talking about end the poverty. But ending poverty requires an end to wars.

SPENCER: Absolutely. Axworthy is pushing that. In the Globe he said that without ending war, the aid can’t do much.

BHANEJA: Right. But we have three obstacles. One is lack of political will for creating a department of peace. Second is the bureaucratic tendency in the mainstream departments. Foreign Affairs, CIDA and DND defend their turf and are reluctant to think outside the box. And there’s quite a big lobby of consultants and NGOs who don’t suggest creating a new structure. As Science for Peace representative, I’ve found myself in a privileged position in these meetings, since I’m not looking for a government contract. The third obstacle to this is the absence of a national dialogue outside the government.

We’re happy that a working group on the department of peace is strong in Victoria. We invited Saul Arbess in February to CPS consultations to speak on his vision of a peace department. We need similar working groups all across the country coming together with their own ideas. There are some who feel uncomfortable with the title “Department of Peace.” You could call it, say, a “Department of Peacebuilding and Human Security” or “Peacebuilding and Disarmament,” etc. — but it won’t do to make it a little branch within Foreign Affairs or CIDA or DND.

Our Ottawa group includes Murray Thomson, Hans Sinn, Peter Stockdale, and myself. We will continue to educate the parliamentarians here. We’ve got a pretty positive response, so far, from some Liberal MPs and from Stockwell Day, Foreign Affairs critic for the opposition, and from the NDP’s Alexa McDonough’s office.

SPENCER: Is there a web site?

BHANEJA: We have kept two projects separate – the department of Peace and the Civilian Peace Service Canada, which logically would fit inside the department of peace. This paper is on CPSC web site: www.peaceservice.ca.

SPENCER: Tell me about yourself. You’re a shooting star because I didn’t know you until a few months ago.

BHANEJA: My last assignment was as a senior program manager in Foreign Affairs Canada’s “Global Partnership Program,” which is aimed at non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction from formerly Soviet countries. Most of my career in the department has been as a science diplomat with postings in London, Bonn, and Berlin. I have a Ph.D. in science policy from the University of Manchester. Having been in the government for 30 years — 21 of them in the foreign service — I felt that there were gaps in the government approach to the peace mandate.

SPENCER: How does it feel to leave the government and move into a civilian activist role? How do the two worldviews compare?

BHANEJA: People in government are mindful of how their policies will be accepted so departments’ outreach focus is on information dissemination for program acceptance rather than input to policy or program development, or on any structural reform. When I was in government we did a pretty good job of selling what was government policy.

I took early retirement because I had worked on the other side all my life and I wanted to work from this side. It gives me more opportunity to work in terms of my own personal values. I was born in India. When I was six years old I saw Mahatma Gandhi and ahimsa gradually became a second nature. So now I look for ways of promoting non-killing, nonviolence.

SPENCER: Thanks for all your good work! I hope the department of peace idea will come true.

Mr. Bhaneja is a former Canadian diplomat and Metta Spencer is editor of Peace Magazine.