1) What could a Department of Peace accomplish that is not currently being addressed by other governmental departments?
The proposed federal department of peace will be an entity that would provide a single coherent framework for policy focus for peace. It will bring together for the first time three major components of international peace and security: peacemaking, peace keeping and peace building.
Difficulty in transparency results from the way “peace and security” is defined in the government and the way in which responsibility for international security is organized. The international peace and security envelope work is spread currently in several federal departments such as National Defense, Foreign Affairs, CIDA, Justice and Immigration. In none of these departments is “peace” the top priority. The Department of Defense identifies its main priority as national security. Foreign Affairs is busy in crisis management, rather than long-term peace building. CIDA’s top priority is poverty alleviation. There is an absence of a systemic approach for peace within the government.
Five key interrelated offices with conflict prevention focus in this new department are envisaged: Peace Education, Human and Economic Rights, Disarmament, Civilian Peace Service, and Domestic Violence.
As citizens, voters want their tax-dollars to be spent on peacebuilding rather than on war and the resultant and destruction, including the killing of innocent civilians as necessary collateral damage. A Department of Peace is our alternative to the status quo.
2) How much would it cost and where would the money come from?
A Department of Peace may not require any ‘new’ money. Many components would simply be a realignment of existing services under the new department. The federal government annually spends over $17 billion on its ‘international security’ envelope. This amount will soon be over $20 billion. This is a considerable amount of taxpayer’s contribution for which there is little transparency or public debate. A small portion (less than 5%) of this would be enough to establish and staff a Department of Peace. As its effectiveness is ascertained and developed the defence budget would be significantly reduced.
3) Canada is a relatively small, peaceful nation and is not a major player internationally so wouldn’t this just be a waste?
Actually Canada is well respected and can have an influence on the international stage. It helps that we aren’t one of the biggest players, and it helps that we have a history of taking the lead internationally on peace initiatives, such as the peacekeeping program of the UN – which didn’t exist before Lester B. Pearson proposed it – and the initiative to ban land mines which Lloyd Axworthy played a very big role in developing. In conflict areas of the world there is often an expressed desire for Canada to become involved and show leadership.
4) Aren’t the militarily strong states just going to do what they want to anyway?
International efforts to support just resolution of conflicts often have good results. An example is the end of apartheid in South Africa. International sanctions and boycotts, initiated through the Commonwealth with Canada playing a lead role, played a major role in creating the economic and social pressure needed to nonviolently pressure South Africa into changing its system.
5) Why would a nation in conflict want to hear what we have to say or listen to our advice?
Very often its not advice that is needed, as much as presence in support of human rights. International peace teams such as Peace Brigades International and Nonviolent Peace Force are non-partisan regarding the outcome of a conflict, but by their presence they make it safer for civil society organizations in the conflict zone to create movement towards a peaceful outcome. When it is safe to do so, local civil society organizations can take the lead in finding a solution to conflict.
6) The rich run the world and have no higher authority than profits and power. How can we change that?
This is a major problem. However, the rich are after all a minority. The majority of everyday citizens need to realize that we do have power, especially when we are organized. We can expect our governments to take a leadership role in developing societies that are the way we want them to be both, here in Canada and internationally. ‘The future belongs to the organized’ so we need to continue to get our message out and develop our support base.
Note: It is impressive to see the front line peacebuilding work done by grassroots organizations in many countries afflicted with terrible conflict. These are very often class-based and resource-based conflict. They do not have the option of giving up. To see how committed, creative and willing to take risks these people are should inspire us to do likewise.
7) There will always be crazies who want to kill and destroy for no seemingly logical reason. What do you do with them?
In seeking to combat the terrorism of our modern world new thinking is required. There is tremendous difference between military aggression and multilateral peace operations to protect civilian populations. Our presumption should always be against the use of force and in favour of settling differences without violence, but unfortunately, reality dictates that some uses of force may be necessary at times to assure justice and prevent the greater violence that often results when aggression is unconstrained. However, a limited and focused use of force, administered within the rule of law, is very different from aggressive and often indiscriminate warfare. The former, similar to police power, is subject to legal and moral constraints and is ethically superior to war. This is where we should be heading and what we should be developing.
There are a number of factors that hold the war system in place. It’s not just ‘crazies’. It has to do with the way our economy is run, the way we resolve (or not) our conflicts, the way we teach our kids to expect the world to be… Having a peaceful future is going to require an active effort undertaking all the steps to build peace that we can think of. We are going to have to be willing to pay for that with at least a fraction of what we seem willing to pay for war. However, it will reap major benefits.
Notice how there is always more money for war but never enough money for things people need, like housing, education, health care, and aid to countries that need to rebuild their societies. Graeme MacQueen of McMaster Peace Studies Centre recalls that their organization sought funding to work in Afghanistan through the 1990’s when the Russians had retreated and the people needed and wanted help from the west to rebuild. He was told then that ‘Afghanistan is not a priority for Canada’. Why not? And why is it now? What if we had invested a fraction of what we are now spending on this war in building a civil society at that time?
8) Who is going to listen to us?
Our Members of Parliament are elected by the people. Political parties actually do take their lead a lot of the time from the public. Just look at what has happened with the issue of climate change. People see it as an issue, have said so, and the politicians are falling all over themselves to look like they know what to do. It will be the same thing with peacebuilding if people give a clear message that this is what we want.
9) Can you institutionalize a social conscience?
We can build the structures to respond to our expressed values. Take healthcare and public education, for example. We are providing public services and not accepting the argument that some will make that it can’t be done.
In all faiths we find a common thread of living peacefully and justly with all peoples. Between them, these communities represent the values of the vast majority of our citizens. We should ‘institutionalize’ these ideals, principles and standards which are foundational to our civilization.
10) Isn’t this just another left wing idea to be ignored by the right?
Peace goes beyond left and right. It is an issue of the future of our children and children around the world. The options are to live in armed fortresses protected by mighty armies, or work for peace and justice for all. Many studies have shown that peace and justice for all is much less expensive and much more effective than the mighty armies method.