We Can Do More than War
The Problem.
Most everyone agrees that there is a problem between the
countries of the UN Security Council and the current government of
The Way of War
Given a conflict situation, i.e. a group of people who have
a problem, one approach is to eliminate people – the way of war. An alternative approach is to eliminate the
problem – the way of nonviolence.
Is war an effective
way to manage the conflict with the Iraqi government?
Desert Storm – i.e. the Persian Gulf War of 1991 was a
resounding success according to some people.
The
It is most probably
that a new war[1] will
actually make
The destruction of
the
If fact, because our obsolete methods of dealing with terrorism have been demonstrated to be inadequate in subduing the elusive Al Qaeda, we are now targeting a more traditional “stationary” target – one that does not move – a country – an entity that our weapons were built to destroy – a target that we can see with our satellites, we can find on our maps. Targets that are stationary structures and troops who naively remain above ground in distinct uniforms so they are easy to see and shoot at. Haven’t we yet learned that the new “enemy” does not wear self-identifying outer garments? Haven’t we yet learned that the new “enemy” does not look any different from our (Arab) friends. Haven’t we learned that our new “enemy” does not fight by Western rules? The way of the terrorist may not be fair, but things have changed. Our obsolete tools and military actions are not going to solve this conflict with terrorists.
We the People are ultimately responsible for the acts of our
Executive Branch and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of this war.
What does war cost?
The Executive Branch of the U.S. Government has proposed a 2004 budget to
Congress. It is proposing (and fully
expects to spend) the largest “deficit”
ever undertaken by the people of the
Instead we must rely on estimates by
administration officials of between $50 and $200 Billion to the
This silent cost of war is over and above the current 2004 budget that the Executive Branch of our country has just proposed to Congress. Eventually this cost must be paid through taxes. Also because of the nature of this “silent” taxation – it is truly taxation without representation. This silent taxation at least deserves an acknowledgement if the “cause” for which this expenditure i.e. “our security” is truly valid.
Are We the People so weak that we do not even care what this taxation is going to be?
This great country was build upon a profound Constitution that represents the People and is intended to protect its People against violations of basic Human Rights – including Taxation without Representation. The average struggling citizen of this country may not care to spend this much of their “disposable wealth” on the Administration’s approach to added security – particularly when:
a) our
government representatives have not yet been adequately demonstrated that there
is a real and imminent danger from
b) our government representatives have not made a convincing argument there are no alternative methods to resolve the issue of “weapons of mass destruction” in the hands of a dictator other than conventional war, and
c) war
has yet to be an effective method of managing human conflict – specifically the
problem with
The Way of
Nonviolence
Is nonviolence effective?
We need a new approach to managing conflict. Ironically the
Yet we are a people who are currently obsessed with violence – it is pervasive in our entertainment, in our sports, in our speech, in our recreation, and in our approach to many conflict situations. Sports figures make large sums of money being violent, actors make large sums of money enacting violence, our media makes money portraying and reporting violence, – but still we are troubled by violence. We fear (and know) that our children are becoming desensitized to violence because it is so pervasive in our society today. This fear indicates that our conscience is still intact – that we do have a sense of right and wrong – that there is hope.
Other tools that we posses include our knowledge of conflict management – our political system is based on a model that deals with conflicting viewpoints in a nonviolent manner – our Constitution prescribes a manner that is respectful of others viewpoints and eventually yields to the “democratic” process with universal suffrage (as long as you are old enough – neither education nor wisdom are a prerequisite for voting).
We have past and current leaders who are internationally acknowledged as effective “Peacemakers.”[5] We have organizations and academic institutions that are highly skilled in using constructive nonviolent methods of managing conflict. We have numerous researchers in our country who continue to help us understand the root causes of violence.[6] We have several million people who yearn for alternatives to war and are willing to help if requested.
What we lack is simply the leadership and coordination we need to be a great Peacemaking country.
We are the world leader in the trying to achieve peace using the old methods - sometimes called Peacekeeping though the use of armed forces. Our Department of Defense has assembled and trained and equipped the best military in the world. We can be proud of these dedicated people who also want peace and are willing to place themselves in harm’s way to protect us.
We can be a world leader (if that is a desired goal) in Peacemaking / Peacebuilding, in developing and using alternatives to war. Ironically we were on a path to become such a leader when the events of September 11 caused us to drift off course. We must regain our balance and refocus on Peacemaking. For those who fear that Peacemaking means we give up our Peacekeeping force, let this assure you that is not the case. We need both. In fact it is strange that we have not realized this already – a Peacemaking force i.e. an organization that excels in identifying, and managing conflicts early, will compliment our Peacekeeping force and help keep them out of harm’s way in many instances. The Peacemaking force will manage / de-escalate a conflict situation before it grows into violence. We know this is possible because it has been demonstrated on many occasions in our personal lives - as well as in our workplaces - as well as in our democratic society - as well as global. Effective nonviolence conflict management skills have been demonstrated at all levels of conflict – ranging from interpersonal to international.
Ironically our country was on the verge of considering and debating a new government organization to compliment the Department of Defense just prior to 9/11. In July of 2001, legislation was first proposed by a small number of our representatives in the House as HR 2495. The proposed legislation called for the formation of a new cabinet level organization chartered to explore creative nonviolent alternatives to conflict situations – a Department of Peace. This organization would be tasked with the early identification of conflict situations and the use of effective conflict management skills to help “manage/resolve” these situations before the people involved became so frustrated that violence was perceived to be their only option. It must be emphasized that the proposed Department of Peace would not replace the Department of Defense - the formation of this new Department would not make us weaker – if fact it would make us stronger – both from an internal perspective as well as one observed by the our external friends and global neighbors.
A formal Department of Peace would make us stronger
internally because it would remove the current divisiveness that exists in our
country related to a war. Take the impending
war with
The “Peace” organizations viewpoints, creative ideas, and evidence of the effectiveness of these nonviolent strategies would be represented by the Department of Peace. The Department of Defense would certainly appreciate every effort to manage or resolve a conflict situation early so that their personnel would not have to risk their lives. As a result, it seems reasonable that a number of the Department of Defense and Homeland Security assets would be shared (e.g. assets for information gathering such as the CIA because Peacemakers need information to be effective just as do Peacekeepers. The CIA Worldbook 2002 is a great source of intelligence information that would be useful for Peacemakers.)
What does nonviolence
cost?
Funding the Department of Peace will certainly create an argument in congress. If this service was free, there would less resistance by lawmakers to pass HR2459.
Let’s consider the situation where We the People voluntarily set up an escrow fund, a trust, for this new Department. This would not be taxation without representation. This would be voluntary taxation. If we are going to be taxed $2500 per family without representation for a war, doesn’t it make sense to voluntarily offer $1 or even $10 to the Peacemaking escrow account. Note that his contribution would certainly be tax deductible – hence each dollar would only cost us $.70. Ideally Congress, in its wisdom, could enact a Peace Tax Credit bill – so that if we voluntarily gave up to say $100, that contribution would become a tax credit. For those who do not believe in nonviolence, they could choose not to donate to the Peace Tax. Suppose that 50 million people donated $10 – that’s $500 million dollars – a reasonable start. One might assume that it would take several years for the new Department to get organized and then several more to begin producing useful nonviolent “products” So over a 5 year period, those 50 million people would be putting $50 at risk.
What are the benefits
of Peacemaking?
There is no doubt that the “products” from this Department
would have “spin offs” for other sectors of our economy. Lessons Learned would certainly be helpful
in reducing the cost of conflict in the workplace for example, this in turn
would be reflected in less hostile, more cooperative and more productive work
environments – with a positive impact on the bottom line of
It is fully expected, if not demanded, that eventually the Department of Peace (as well as other sectors of our society) would show a positive return on investment – i.e. a net savings to the government - the effort invested in nonviolence would be saved in replacement costs of spent munitions, in less overtime for Peacekeeping and law enforcement, . This of course raises a red flag for those organizations that make munitions – we would have to gradually, over the next 10 years, provide new job opportunities for these people – and that could be done by future legislation for those areas of the country where the increase Peace expenditures did not offset their loss in Defense expenditures.
Ironically anticipated benefits of an expanded Peacemaking
initiative includes the positive impact these efforts will have on our global
reputation. If the People of the
Conclusion
It is possible to build a world without war – and We the People could help
build such a world.
Let’s start right now. Talk it over with a friend or family member. If it still makes sense, talk it over with another friend or a business associate. If it still makes sense, let’s start working together to help develop alternatives to war.
Together, We the People can do more than war.
[1] A
unilaterally war or nearly unilateral war assuming the
[2] An
untold number of Arab allies will undoubtedly side with the
[3] expected to be less than several thousand
[4] estimated to be several hundred thousand (euphemistically called “collateral damage”)– probably less than one million lives
[5] e.g. President Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King, Jr.,……
[6] e.g. Roger Fischer, William Ury, ……