Department Of Peace? Why Not?

I subscribe to a Canadian magazine called “PEACE MAGAZINE" I receive this magazine quarterly (four times a year) I found an interesting article in the October issue. I thought I‘d share an excerpt from the article with search warp readers.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Canadian Prime Minister) has spent more than $20 billion so far on his military spending spree in Iraq even though the opposition is accusing Harper of an American style defense buildup that seems more attuned to offensive warfare than peacekeeping.

Bush has already spent $600 billion on the four-year war in Iraq. That’s $10 billion per month, apart from the annual US budget. Harper’s $22 billion on new equipment is only the beginning of Canada’s spending. Bush and Harper do not have withdrawal strategies, so these costs are ongoing.

Given the budgets of Departments of Defense, both countries could well afford a couple of billion to start up Departments of Peace. It would be a better investment. Not only would Departments of Peace balance our interest in war with an interest in peace, they might even set examples globally.

What would a Canadian or American Department of Peace do? Like the Department of Defense, it would find plenty to do globally - or even locally. But here’s a specific activity. CNN recently reported on a study that demonstrated that $625 billion already spent on the War on Terrorism now in its fifth year would buy thousands of fully equipped schools and hospitals. Why not do so. Similarly, Harper’s $22 billion for equipment would buy a lot of education and health service wherever it is most needed.

               Activist in several countries, including Canada and US, are promoting departments of peace.

Or maybe Departments of Peace could be used to plan the withdrawal strategies when Department of Defense are not successful in foreign lands. Or maybe Departments of Peace could do the work of implementing some sort of Marshall Plans after wars are over. Win or lose?

Or maybe Departments of Peace could be used to oversee the greening of war efforts? Wars are bad polluters because they consume enormous amounts of energy and create more greenhouse gases than any civilian activities.

But most of all, Department of Peace could be used to balance our two North American versions of democracy and give us the opportunity to support something between elections.

In theory, democratic countries get the leaders they deserve. Voters supported Bush for a second term, knowing he was a warrior chief. Voters supported Harper suspecting that he also was one. By insisting that our leaders manage departments of war (aka departments of defense"), we would encourage a more balanced approach to running our countries.

Peace, like war, has to be planned and implemented over long periods of time. Eventually, we hope the Departments of Peace will have budgets of $10 billion per month and Departments of War only $2 billion. Why not?