 |
The
Case For Peace Planning in Executive Governments
|
From our policy documents
Conclusions and Recommendations pages, the Peaceplangroup has evaluated and prepared recommendations
to strive for peace from a "top down evaluation" by revamping the United
Nations. In the introduction to our culture section, we have identified
how activism and the culturization of activism has a "bottom up" approach,
in influencing national Governments towards peace Culturization. This section aims to develop alternative policies for National
Governments.
The European Union was poorly prepared for the break up of the former
Yugoslavia, and is still catching up Europa/Development
- Civil Society, Good Governance NGOs and decentralised co-operation while the United Nations fares little better,
although steps taken with Kofi Annan`s An Agenda for Peace
appears to reflect an improvement on current affairs.
Both the EU and the UN have little appetite it appears for peace planning
(see Europa/Development
- Conflict Prevention and Ethiopia
Humanitarian Update,03/16/00
National Governments deal with "questions" in this debating sphere; we
have the Northern Ireland "question," Palestinian "question" and of course
the Iraqi "question" but where in Governments do we seek our solutions
?
Within America they have a section of Government, which deals specifically
with Peace:- Peace
Corps. The United States Government
Manual - 2000/2001 President Bill
Clinton described the organisation as;
"The Peace Corp is a remarkable tradition that emphasizes that our country is about more than power and wealth. It is also about the power of our values, and the power of a helping hand, the ethic of service, and the understanding that we have an obligation not only to our own people, to people around the world to help them make the most of their own lives."
President Bill Clinton
U.S.A. Peace
Corps; 1990 History
Since 1961, the Peace Corp has clearly had very little influence
on American foreign policy judging by the subsequent military action which
took place in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Colombia, Nicaragua and
Grenada etc.
In recognition of this U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich presented
a bill to "establish a Department of Peace" with
cabinet level representation on the 21st July 2001 (yes, 52 days before
the World Trade Centre`s destruction) requesting one percent of the military
budget. Congressman Dennis Kucinich
| The Spirit of Freedom The bill
wasnt enacted, but it does raise questions of our pluralist democracy.
If the United States can develop a military solution to end the Iraqi
question, estimated to cost $350-400 billion then why cannot the U.S.
administration afford a peaceful solution ?
In the U.K., a combination of Government departments ( DFID )
Non Governmental Organisations (N.G.O.`s) - ( BOND ) and
charities British Red Cross
exist to present any case for peace that may exist, or that they
may, or may not wish to present, but the simple fact is little government
resources are made available to peaceful solutions. In this light, Government
has a direct responsibility to security and peace, and may choose to delegate
authority to a N.G.O. or Quasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisation
(QUANGO), but it cannot delegate direct responsibility.
The U.K. military budget of £32,282 millions Ministry
of Defence - Performance Report 2001/2002
presents a strong popular argument for trimming in favour of improvements
in education, health and transport, however a more powerful argument exists
that if we had an effective alternative solutions system to militarism,
we could cut further the military capital budget in particular.
By developing a peace department along the lines of Kucinichi`s we could
incorporate the alternative solution to militarism, and introduce other
contentious areas of government to share, such as the Export Credit Guarantee
initiative (which is currently considering the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline) to
the point where seamless responsible, accountable Governance can take
place within the concept of the Ethical impact assessment
Prism. Only then can we claim to have a well thought out "ethical
foreign policy."
To our Secretary Generals, Presidents and Prime Ministers we now have
to say answer the "question."
Copyright S Coleman 2003
3 February 2003
 |
|
 |