Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
- Profiting From Human Misery
- Decolonize the Consumerist Wasteland: Re-imagining a World Beyond Capitalism and Communism
- Scale Implosion: After Ruining America, the Era of Giant Chain Stores Is Over
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
Popular content
Today's Top News
Give Peace a Seat at Cabinet Table
Duelling was once regarded as an entirely appropriate way for two gentlemen to resolve a dispute.
Today, a gentleman challenging another to a duel would be regarded as peculiar. Duels have become obsolete in the civilized world.
Could war also become an outdated method of conflict resolution – particularly as we enter an era of intensified global conflict over dwindling resources?
This compelling question lies behind an international grassroots movement that got a boost last week when NDP MP Bill Siksay and Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis introduced a private member's bill in Parliament calling for the creation of a federal Department of Peace, with a seat at the cabinet table.
Of course, private member's bills rarely pass, especially when, like this one, they challenge the orthodoxy of the military-industrial-academic establishment.
A Department of Peace may sound mushy and soft-hearted, but it's actually a deeply, subtly revolutionary idea, in that it threatens to undermine the war-oriented mindset that dominates our culture.
The goal of making war obsolete doesn't rely on any dewy-eyed notions about the possibilities of human improvement. Gentlemen no longer duel – not because men today are more kindly or sensitive than men were in the past, but because duelling has become socially unacceptable.
The same is true of slavery. Once a widely accepted practice, slavery now lacks legitimacy throughout the civilized world. With the rise of a strong abolitionist movement, a practice that had been regarded for centuries as a natural form of human behaviour came to be seen as uncivilized, immoral and repugnant.
We're taught to believe that war is different, however, that it's inevitable, given the human tendency for aggression. But war isn't just an expression of human aggression. It's also an institution that requires social approval and support.
Western Europe is a striking example of what happens when that social approval is withdrawn. After centuries of constant war against each other, the people of western Europe were profoundly changed by the bloodbath of World War II, which left them no longer willing to tolerate war as a means of resolving their differences.
Today, a politician in Germany, France or Britain advocating war against another western European nation would be regarded as unsophisticated, unbalanced – even ridiculous.
Canada could sorely use a Department of Peace.
In recent years, we've deviated sharply from our strong peacekeeping tradition; our troop contributions to UN missions now rank below those of tiny nations like Benin, Togo and Fiji. Stephen Harper's Conservatives have instead cultivated a culture of war, projecting a hyper-muscular image abroad while committing a massive $490 billion to military spending over the next 20 years – even though we're already the sixth biggest military spender in NATO.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff suffers from the same warlike mentality. In an April 2004 TV interview, while he was a professor of "human rights" at Harvard, Ignatieff endorsed targeted assassinations. He also keenly supported George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq – a position he now regrets, but only because that war turned out badly.
Both Harper and Ignatieff could be said to belong to the "warrior class" – the political, corporate and military elite that is closely tied to the highly profitable industry of war.
No one expects them to abandon their pro-war stance – at least not until a profound change in public attitudes leaves them looking as foolish as two investment bankers counting their paces before shooting it out on Bay Street.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
40 Comments so far
Show AllObama = Bush ( Don't agree? Think Gates! New president same wars, same polices and same lies.)
Shame on you all who voted for Obama!!!
Perhaps when the U.S. awakens from its slumber it too will create a Dept. of Peace envisioned by the man who should've been President, Dennis Kucinich.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdTcxn77noo
Cygnus, I could not agree more. Why Dennis Kucinich has not gotten the support he needed to win is beyond me. Have you read his book about his life? This is a man who has experienced struggle and persevered. He values people and wants to reduce suffering all over the world. He has said he will end Nafta and WTO within days of becoming President and I know he'll do it. Look at everything Bush did with executive orders. Those can be used for the good of the people, too.
Anyway, nice to know Dennis Kucinich supporters are out there. Sean Penn and Viggo Mortensen have campaigned with him. Where are those other celebrities? I wish they would wake up.
Sue
I still have my "KUCINICH for President - Strength through Peace" T-shirt and I am very proud to wear it. These t-shirts were UNION MADE IN THE U.S.A.!....unlike the American flags manufactured in China that were being waved in U.S. Convention Halls.
When will the American public wake up?
Cygnus-X1-isaHole: Right on and well said! Three more years and we'll get a People's President in, eh?!
Maybe voters will have been sufficiently awakened by then to elect a Progressive Congress as well.
Well said!
Perhaps a spaceship will land on Earth [as in the 1950s sci-fi classic the Day The Earth Stood Still] and announce to this planet's inhabitants that if they do not cease making war among themselves then it will send in a race of super powerful robots to maintain the peace. Where is Gort when we really need him?
A "Department" of Peace sounds pleasant, but we need only look at what happens to words in the United States of Avariciousness to see how this could become worse than meaningless.
"Bipartisan" means it is of one mindset and no other is to be tolerated.
"Freedom" is the basis of oppression and destruction.
The Department of "Defense" is the provider of unilateral aggression.
The "Patriot" act renders the Constitution a criminal document.
"Democracy" is determined by how much money you have to control those who have less.
I dread to imagine what a Department of Peace would authorize in the United States of Aggression.
Linda McQuaig and Common Dreams:
Thank you for this article communicating that those in favor of peace are not alone.
The MP's in Canada's Parliament should be commended for introducing a bill for a Department of Peace.
I agree with Cygnus and nicolas -- Dennis Kucinich as President will bring a Department of Peace to the U.S. and I am also disappointed in those who voted for Obama.
We progressives are smarter than that.
Vote for Dennis Kucinich next time and support him now, please.
"The same is true of slavery. Once a widely accepted practice, slavery now lacks legitimacy throughout the civilized world. With the rise of a strong abolitionist movement, a practice that had been regarded for centuries as a natural form of human behaviour came to be seen as uncivilized, immoral and repugnant."
She threw credibility out the window with this one. Someone needs to inform her that half world's population lives on $2 a day or less. The average industrial wage in China comes out to about $110 a month. Assuming a 40 hour work week (not a good assumption), that comes out to a whopping 68 cents an hour. There is an estimated 27 million slaves in the world today. Her shoes were probably made by children working in the sweatshops of Asia.
Department of Peace? Sounds Orwellian. Think Department of Justice here in the USA. Didn't they say that torture is legal?
Linda has forgotten more about this world and its problems than you will ever know. She made it clear where slavery is not considered legitimate. She knows as well as you that there is still real slavery out there, but not in the US, or Canada, or France, or Germany...etc.
You're a self-righteous, blowhard. And confused.
This author is living in a dream world. Slavery actually is one of the top money earners that continues to enslave young woman for the sex trade world-wide; millions are sold into the industry to work in Brothels all over the world including the United States.
The paradox about peace is that it cannot be achieved by the current system.
I would suggest that if we returned to dueling, peace might acutally have a chance. Can you imagine some fat-ass corporate executive taking the field of honor? Same goes for the pond scum in the Democratic and Republican parties. Case in point, Cheney would have shit his pants before ever facing off in a duel.
This Country is run by man-children including all elected officials currently. Long since domesticated by Mommie.
"Can you imagine some fat-ass corporate executive taking the field of honor? Same goes for the pond scum in the Democratic and Republican parties. Case in point, Cheney would have shit his pants before ever facing off in a duel."
True! But I actually want to thank you for the best laugh I've had this month. I'm still chuckling. Thanks again!!
I had a similar thought. When are the adults going to start running this country? When do we stop being led by our inferiors?
Two of our Founding Fathers, Hamilton and Burr, sqaured off in a duel. Both were refined, and both were real Men.
While I was being ironical, it strikes me nevertheless, that our cultural dynamics would take on a very different scope of praxis with the likes of Glen Beck or Limbaugh if their incessant whinning, insults, lies, and attack dog style had real consequences for their big mouths.
We live in a culture of 'yes' men on the left and right. Why not get involved?
"The same is true of slavery. Once a widely accepted practice, slavery now lacks legitimacy throughout the civilized world. With the rise of a strong abolitionist movement, a practice that had been regarded for centuries as a natural form of human behaviour came to be seen as uncivilized, immoral and repugnant."
It's fine to point out, in response to this claim, that slavery still exists in the world (both when defined as extreme exploitation and when defined more narrowly as ownership of a human being), but I think some of you are, in your cynicism, missing her point.
She's saying social movements can make a difference. She's pointing, rightly, to the abolitionist movement as having made a difference. She's calling for intensification of the de-legitimation of war, a process that the peace movement started about 200 years ago and has been slogging away at ever since. I've never found it helpful to be so cynical that we trash our own social movements and deny their successes.
I think the real path to improvement is self-realization. She has the mindset that we are historically better than people of the past. I beg to differ with her. We are worse than ever. Look at the wars and plunder, the human exploitation on a scale never before seen in human history. Look at the proliferation of WMD and the environmental destruction of the planet. This is a nadir of human existence and we can not point to anything in the past that has forestalled this ravenous rush to self-destruction. I found her words unfortunate and delusional. It was a declaration of victory in the face of abysmal defeat. Just because she's sitting on the plantation with a mint julep in her hand makes it all the more offensive.
I think a department of peace a sound idea. While it true slavery still exists the point is we find the idea repugnant in Canada in a country where it once existed.
We should look the same way towards war as CANADIANS.
Now this does not mean that the USA or other countries will change their own views towards war, nor does it mean that Canadian firms and or even Citizens would still not try to profit off War as we profit off third world slavery BUT it that first small step towards making it unacceptable as foreign policy in Canada.
I would much prefer Canada be seen as a leader in things like peace, stewardship of the enviroment, the equality of its citizens then as a leader in War, GDP growth based on the plunder of our own resources and how many people we have in the list of Worlds richest men.
Your point?
I think I was quite clear on where I stood on the issue.
Only a fool doesn't favor peace.
But what does a peaceful society or person do when confronted by a violent society or a violent person?
You can have a Dept. of Peace, but it will do you little good in the world as it stands.
For those that seem to confuse poverty with slavery, she is speaking of real slavery, the kind where if I decide to have you whipped to death I can. It is not a rhetorical difference.
Indeed....Gort where are you?
Henry8 my man, we have both served in Vietnam but I am afraid that we both learned different lessons. When we can have departments of wars and defense, why not have a department of peace that the USA of all nations sorely needs? One of the invaluable lessons I learned from war is this. You cannot defeat a violent society by being as violent as them. Israel is a perfect example. There is no middle class and their economy is very fragile at best because it relies on mainly warfare. To confront a violent society, you must first find out what made them violent in the first place and then find ways to reduce their violence rather than increase it via turning a peaceful society into another war zone.
You can have all the departments of wars and defense but what good will it serve when society is fed up with war and its rising costs eating into people's lives here at home both financially and emotionally? We cannot afford to allow for war departments to interfere with society's wish for peace.
I came across an archived post where you and Sioux Rose had a dispute about what to do with the military getting out of control. My wife agreed with Rose on getting rid of the military. I don't blame them for their bitter opposition to the military given the financial and emotional damage that it has done thanks to the politicians who turned the military from simple homeland defense into a preemptive warehouse ever since the Vietnam War. My solution would be to put a moratorium on the military until it can be tamed and we can trust our leaders not to misuse it.
"I don't blame them for their bitter opposition to the military given the financial and emotional damage that it has done thanks to the politicians who turned the military from simple homeland defense into a preemptive warehouse ever since the Vietnam War."
Vietnam War? This has been going on for as long as this country has been in existence.
Smedley Butler weighs in:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
How about the genocide of native Americans?
"How about the genocide of native Americans?"
We're all guilty of that too but that is a totally different case for another discussion.
How so? It was all about domination, expansion and making money. You can see this beast rearing its ugly head throughout the history of this country. Today is no exception.
Then I'm glad we're seeing the beginning of the end of the American empire. And new ideas, as Linda has told us about, can take root.
"For those that seem to confuse poverty with slavery, she is speaking of real slavery, the kind where if I decide to have you whipped to death I can. It is not a rhetorical difference."
Tell that to the 36 million people who have starved to death this year. Or the 1 BILLION who are currently starving.
"For those that seem to confuse poverty with slavery, she is speaking of real slavery, the kind where if I decide to have you whipped to death I can. It is not a rhetorical difference."
You've loosely desceribed 'Chattel Slavery'. There are other forms; no single one is more real than any other.
Peter Tosh.
She's talking about simple, straightforward SLAVERY, where one person can own another outright, like you own a horse, or a cow, or a dog. F**k!!! "Leftists" are such morons. No wonder the sublimely stupid right wingers f..k us over with wild abandon when the left is so f..king stupid.
As usual, Linda has written a clear, reasonable, intelligent, well-researched article. And as usual, the comments are stupid, beside the point, self-flattering...!!!!*(^)*(&%*)%&%_%&_(%_(&%&*($&*($
She is talking about simple, straightforward slavery (practised by our founding fathers...OWNING human beings as if they were cattle, and keeping them in your possession and doing your work by force). And no, you were not allowed to kill slaves, but they were still not free.
Unbelievable that something so simple as literal slavery can't be talked about intelligently on this 'progressive' website. No wonder the 'left' is so pathetic.
Canada could use a department of peace? So the hell too can the USA ! Does Canada have a Dept of War? Then abolish it first.
Peace cannot be maintained by anything outside of itself, including a 'dept. of peace' and especially conflict. The world is under the spell of relative opposites. We do not consider that life's intrinsic characteristics can and are maintained by themselves. What we call peace is really nothing other than the 'absence of war'. The main reason peace cannot be maintained is that most have never actually experienced it. we use conflict in an attempt to protect an illusion. The illusion being that if there is no overt conflict then we must be at peace. However the covert conflict of psychic warfare continues in our hearts and minds,like a volcano building up pressure just under the surface. If we as a nation believe that peace is the absence of war, then because of it's relative nature, it requires protection. Real peace requires no protection. It is totally self sustaining to the extent that it allows war and the absence of war to appear inside of it. A department of peace will only serve to continue the perceived need for protection. What action do we need to take to realize this self sustaining peace? What evolutionary bridge must we cross? What obstacles must we overcome? No 'action' can or need be taken. no further development of the personality is necessary and no obstacles can prevent the exposure of unbounded peace. The only obstacle, is the 'belief' that there is any obstacle.
Peace knows peace
beauty knows beauty
compassion knows compassion
And the Department of Peace knows nothing.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Yes! Maybe the Costa Ricans could lend their good offices to help facillitate this trend in other parts of the developing world--like the USA, China, Japan, India, Europe, and the MIddle East.
Poet
Thank you Linda McQuaig. I agree that we must make the concept of war unthinkable. Not that it will immediately stop all aggression, but once we reject the idea of settling differences by means of fighting, war will become obsolete.
Here in the U.S. maybe we should start out by changing the name of the Dept. of Defense back to the Dept. of War which is what it was until about the time when the military stopped defending the country and started building empire. Once that is done maybe we could begin to work for its elimination since we already have a Dept. of Homeland Security for defending the country.
Tommy:
If I may add something: Dept of War Making.
Dennis Kucinich, during and after his 2004 campaign in running for president, talked about a Dept. of Peace. His own party turned against him and that idea.
What a trite, silly comment. People go at each other with fists, knives, guns, etc... As if 2 fools who wanted to try to kill each other with swords would need legal approval to do it.