Peace

There exists in America a vocal concentration of citizens who support the idea of developing a U.S. Department of Peace. They are a group that’s tired of violence as a means of conflict resolution. They recognize a need for an evolution of thought in both foreign and domestic affairs, because, quite frankly, traditional methods of violence and intimidation to control behavior and foment change are just not working.\nThe underlying mission behind the hypothetical Department of Peace centers on the idea that violence results from desperate people using it as a last resort in the quest for basic human needs and dignity. If a powerful sector of government were to be entirely dedicated to the alleviation of desperation, the impetus behind violence could be removed. This department would focus on humanitarian relief both at home and abroad to curb violence before it starts. \nTheoretically, without the competition for resources and basic human needs and with guarantees of human dignity, war can be effectively thwarted. War is an expensive prospect, so when the measures of desperation are alleviated, the risks of war far outweigh the potential benefits. If the advocates for this revolutionary thinking are correct, there will be less struggle, less violence and less suffering, and the United States could stand at the forefront of the revolution for a more harmonious globe.\nYou might snicker, as my friends certainly do, at the prospect of nonviolence as a legitimate means of foreign diplomacy. A Department of Peace in this global environment of anarchy where nothing is safe and everyone seems out to get us? Puh-lease. \nMy response is, “Why not?” Old methods are not working, as made apparent by the failures of the entirety of this administration’s attempts at armed conflicts and the rapidly declining image of America as a result of those failures. I’m certainly up for any new ideas. \nWe are at a moment of critical mass with a world of revisionist states, like China, Iran and Venezuela, who want to change the status quo and claim their legitimacy as global players. We are faced with two choices in responding as a power at risk of losing in a post-revisionist globe. We can continue to respond to these potential changes in the way we always have, with resistance and aggression, a response guaranteed to result eventually in full-scale nuclear conflict. \nOr we can try something new. We can offer these revisionist states cooperation and a dialogue on dignity and equality in the global environment because preserving peace and security for the whole world demands more importance than being “on top” of a global meltdown. Stop the global bullying and pissing contests. It’s time for a change in America’s conceptualization of itself. We don’t have to dominate in a traditional sense in order to lead.