Posted on: Sunday, June 16, 2002

EDITORIAL
In a time of war, why not Peace Department?

Proposals for the swift creation of a new Department of Homeland Security have given fresh energy to the idea of a Cabinet-level Department of Peace.

And why not? If we have Cabinet-level departments organized around fighting wars across the globe and fighting terrorism at home, why not have a department organized around the idea of promoting, seeking and creating peace?

The leading advocate of the idea today is Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. But the idea has been around for years; in fact, one of its earliest champions was the late Sen. Spark Matsunaga of Hawai'i.

In Matsunaga's mind, this wasn't some dreamy idealistic feel-good idea. It was a very pragmatic effort to give peace as much high-level attention as conflict. A Department of Peace would bring together a wide variety of existing activities in the federal government, ranging from conflict resolution efforts and international programs to promote justice and human rights through organizations such as the Peace Corps.

In that sense, it would echo proposals for the Department of Homeland Security, which would give focus and direction to work already largely under way in scattered departments and offices.

Matsunaga never did see his Department of Peace come into existence. He was instrumental in the establishment of the U.S. Institute of Peace in 1984 and, of course, the Peace Studies Institute at the University of Hawai'i is named in his honor.

It has been argued that the only way to truly eliminate the threat of terrorism in this world is to eliminate the root causes of terrorism, which include poverty, hopelessness and unresolved conflict. That is precisely what a Department of Peace would be all about.