October 1, 2001
Roll Call
BYLINE: By Ethan Wallison
In another world, one that might have existed before Sept. 11, the U.S.
government would have had an assistant secretary for peaceful coexistence
and nonviolent conflict resolution, and there would have been a Peace Academy,
modeled on the military service academies, complete with a mandatory five-year
period of service after graduation.
That world was the dream of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and 40 other
Democrats who sought to create a U.S. Department of Peace.
There would still be tension and conflict in the world, of course. But
in this other universe, America would be making a proactive effort, through
its Peace Department, to understand the sources of discord and foster harmony.
"Does it occur to anybody that all of this [defense and intelligence] machinery
has failed totally to prepare us for the way the world is now?" asked Rep.
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a co-sponsor of the Peace
Department legislation, which was introduced in July.
"Only now are we trying to figure out what is Islam. Maybe if there
was a Department of Peace, they would be able to say, 'Uh-oh, we've got
some problems with these people,'" Abercrombie continued. "I truly believe
that if we had a Department of Peace, we would have seen this coming."
"This," the world knows, was the hijackings and terrorist attacks that
brought down the World Trade Center and destroyed part of the Pentagon,
killing thousands in the process.
How much the world has changed since the attacks was evident in the
House's Sept. 14 vote authorizing President Bush to use force in retaliation.
Virtually every Peace Department co-sponsor cast a ballot in favor of the
resolution, with only Rep. Barbara Lee(D-Calif.) voting no. (Another co-sponsor,
Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers, missed the vote.)
But can the peace coalition be mobilized for war?
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of what she calls the "peace
community," voted in favor of the war resolution, but suggested her support
is highly conditional.
For one thing, Schakowsky wants to make sure "only" those who are complicit
in the attacks are targeted for retaliation. She also insists that the
United States "work with the international community" on the response,
and indicated that she has an expansive vision of what that "work" would
entail.
"This was not a slam-dunk vote for me," Schakowsky said of the war resolution.
"I said [at the time of the vote,], 'I hope I don't live to regret this.'"
Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), who is Japanese-American and spent the early
years of his childhood in a Colorado internment camp during World War II,
explained that he didn't vote for "war" - he voted for "military action."
"Have you ever been in a war?" he asked a reporter. Unlike in war, Honda
suggested, in the current conflict preserving the rights and liberties
cherished by most Americans is one of the government's foremost priorities.
"Isn't that what peace is?" Honda asked.
Several Peace Department supporters stressed that the resolution for
which they voted laid out in specific terms that Congress would not be
abandoning the War Powers Act, which forces the President to seek Congress'
approval for extended military deployments.
However, none of these Members were willing to suggest the limits of
their support for military action.
"The question we have to ask after every act we take is, 'Will this
make us safer?'" Schakowsky said.
Kucinich, the prime mover behind the Department of Peace, could not
be reached for comment last week.
However, the lawmaker's "Action and Information Center," which doubles
as his Congressional Web site, provides a snapshot of the quandary the
Sept. 11 attacks have presented to anti-war Members.
In the press release Kucinich issued to introduce the Peace Department
bill, he lamented that "too often" this country has "overlooked the long-term
solution of peace for the instant gratification of war."
In the release he added, "It's time to recognize that traditional, militant
objectives for peace are not working, and the only solution is to make
peace the goal of a Cabinet-level agency."
In fact, many of the Peace Department's functions would seem to overlap
those of other agencies already in place.
For instance, developing "policy alternatives for the treatment of drug
and alcohol abuse" - a task that would be assigned to the assistant secretary
for domestic peace activities - would seem to be part of the current mission
for the Department of Health and Human Services. Likewise, it would seem
the purpose of the Department of State is to foster world harmony, as far
as that is possible.
However, supporters of a Peace Department believe that the U.S. government,
in its efforts to promote American interests in the world, often overlooks
the important dynamics and nuances of societies and cultures around the
globe, making it incapable of preventing crises before they occur.
One thing about which they all appear to agree is that if U.S. intelligence
is studying these issues, it's not looking hard enough.
"I think we need to redetermine the conditions that ultimately create
war," Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) said, suggesting that the Peace Department
would, among other things, explore the "causes" of conflict "while recognizing
there are some [who hate the U.S.] who can't be changed."
Baird, a self-described "realist" who considers military retaliation
for the terrorist attacks to be its own form of "peace activism," believes
that too much of the focus of U.S. foreign policy right now is on trouble
spots in the world and bypasses societies - his example is Costa Rica -
that try to nurture peace and democracy.
"The message seems to be that if you have a war or drug trafficking,
then you get U.S. aid from it, but if you're doing things right, then forget
about you," Baird said.
At a closed-door briefing for Members last Tuesday, Abercrombie presented
Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with
copies of "Shooting an Elephant," a short story by George Orwell.
Abercrombie noted that Orwell had been an officer in the British Civil
Service in
Burma, which was then a British colony, and the story lays out the author's
mystification at the local practice of shooting elephants. Abercrombie
said he sees the story as a parable suggesting that bringing Western concepts
to the East will lead to failure.
"I'm just saying [to Powell and Rumsfeld] that before charging off on
missions, we should think about what it means to be 'shooting an elephant,'"
he said.
|