Establishment of a United States Department of Peace

Peace
, , ,
1

Policy Proposal: Establishment of a United States Department of Peace

Executive Summary:
This proposal calls for creating a U.S. Department of Peace to address war profiteering, ensure ethical use of tax dollars, and promote peace as a national security strategy. It revisits historical precedents, critiques legislative shortcomings, and provides a strategic framework for implementation, emphasizing the need for a systemic shift in U.S. policy.

Introduction:
The Department of Peace seeks to institutionalize peace-building efforts, providing an ancillary arm to the Department of Defense as a counterbalance to military-centric policies, reflecting historical lessons, and addressing modern legislative and ethical governance issues.

Statement of Need/Problem:

  • War Profiteering and Ethical Tax Allocation:
    The absence of policies like the excess profits tax, used during WWI and WWII to redistribute war wealth, has allowed unchecked profiteering in modern conflicts.

  • Legislative Shortcomings:
    The United States Institute of Peace (USIP), while established in 1984 for peace education, has failed to influence policy directly, address abuses of power, or curb war profiteering[1].

  • Executive Overreach: Erosion of the Bill of Rights through Executive Overreach:
    Legislation such as the NDAA, PATRIOT Act, and the War Powers Act have been critiqued as flagrant measures eroding the Bill of Rights by allowing for:

    • Indefinite Detention without Trial: The NDAA has provisions potentially allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, raising significant due process concerns under the Bill of Rights[2].
    • Expanded Surveillance: The PATRIOT Act facilitates broad surveillance capabilities, which could infringe upon Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures[3][4][2:1][5][6][7].
    • Bypassing Congressional Oversight: The War Powers Act, while intended to check presidential power, has in practice enabled prolonged military engagements without a formal declaration of war or significant legislative oversight, undermining the constitutional balance of powers[8].

These acts collectively contribute to a scenario where executive authority in military and security matters has expanded, often with little accountability, thereby weakening the checks and balances that are fundamental to the U.S. political system and the rights of citizens.

  • Public Conscience:
    The failure to legislate a peace tax fund has left conscientious objectors unable to redirect their tax contributions away from military spending, contravening rights under the ICCPR[9].

Goals/Objectives:

  1. Ethical Use of Tax Dollars:
    Facilitate mechanisms like a peace tax fund for those morally opposed to military spending, ensuring funds are used ethically and in alignment with fundamental human rights.

  • Moral Objection to War Funding: Just as the government has allowed individuals to serve in non-combatant roles or perform alternative civilian service during wartime, there exists a compelling argument for extending similar considerations to those who object to their tax contributions funding war efforts, especially when those efforts fund actions deemed as war crimes or crimes against humanity.

  • Parallels in Ethical Stance: The ethical stance of not wanting to be complicit in warfare through direct participation can logically extend to not wishing to finance such activities. This is particularly poignant when funds are used in ways that lead to or support human rights violations.

  • Legal and Moral Precedent: The principle of conscientious objection is rooted in the recognition of freedom of conscience and religious liberty, rights enshrined in the First Amendment. Extending this to taxation for war could:

    • Promote True Freedom of Conscience: Allow citizens to live according to their deepest-held beliefs without being forced to indirectly participate in actions they morally oppose.

    • Set a Precedent for Accountability: By linking tax payment to specific governmental actions, it could encourage greater scrutiny and accountability over how national defense budgets are spent, potentially deterring support for regimes or actions deemed unethical by international standards.

    • Encourage Peaceful Alternatives: If taxpayers could designate their contributions towards peace-building through the Department of Peace, or non-military aid, this might incentivize more peaceful resolutions to conflicts.

Background/Context:

Historical Context:

  • Excess Profits Tax:
    During the World Wars, the U.S. implemented an excess profits tax to address the economic disparity exacerbated by wartime industries. This tax was designed to:

    • Redistribute Wealth: By taxing the extraordinary profits made by companies directly benefiting from war, it aimed to redistribute wealth and ensure that the financial burden of war was more equitably shared among the populace[2:2].
    • Curb Exploitation: It sought to prevent companies from exploiting wartime conditions for undue financial gain, encouraging a more ethical approach to business during national crises.
    • Post-War Abandonment: Post-WWII, this fiscal policy has been largely abandoned, allowing for a modern landscape where military engagements can lead to significant corporate profits without similar checks, contributing to the current narrative of unchecked war profiteering.

  • Eisenhower’s Warning:
    In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously cautioned the nation about:

    • The Military-Industrial Complex: He expressed concern over the potential for the “unwarranted influence” of the military establishment and arms industry on government policy, a dynamic that could lead to unnecessary wars driven by economic interests rather than national defense needs[1:1].
    • Public Awareness: Eisenhower urged citizens to remain vigilant to ensure that the development of military capabilities did not overshadow other national priorities or distort policy for profit.
    • Enduring Relevance: His warning remains pertinent as defense spending continues to grow, often with little transparency or public debate about its necessity or ethical implications.

  • Smedley Butler’s Critique:
    General Smedley D. Butler, a highly decorated Marine, provided one of the earliest and most vocal criticisms of military interventionism and corporate influence:

    • Corporate Gain: In his book “War is a Racket,” Butler argued that wars are often engineered for the benefit of a few corporations, turning the military into a tool for economic imperialism rather than national defense[7:1].
    • Revealing the Business Plot: He exposed an alleged plot by business leaders to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install a fascist government that would favor business interests over democratic principles, further illustrating the alignment of military actions with corporate agendas.
    • Legacy: His critique has become a foundational narrative for those who argue that the U.S. military has been used more for the benefit of business than for the security of the nation, influencing discussions on peace and the ethical use of military power.

  • Recognition of Conscientious Objectors:
    Historically, the U.S. government has recognized the right of individuals to object to military service on grounds of conscience. This acknowledgment dates back to the Civil War, with formal provisions for conscientious objectors being solidified during World War I and expanded thereafter. This recognition respects the moral or religious convictions of individuals who oppose participation in war in any form. But this recognition historically has only applied to military conscription, but not the misappropriation of tax dollars from American citizens of conscience, therby violating their 1st Amendment right.

Together, these elements form a historical backdrop that critiques the intertwining of economic interests with military policy, highlighting a need for mechanisms like the proposed Department of Peace to address and rectify these long-standing issues.

Legislative History:

Over the span of more than 50 years, the American public’s call for peace and ethical governance has been consistently voiced through the introduction of various peace-oriented bills in Congress. However, these legislative efforts have largely been ignored, tabled without due consideration for passage or implementation:

  • 1972 - 92nd Congress: H.R.14082 - World Peace Tax Fund Bill - Introduced to allow taxpayers to direct their tax contributions towards peace rather than military spending, it reflects early public demand for an ethical allocation of funds.

  • 1984 - 98th Congress: S.2729 - United States Institute of Peace Act - A step towards peace education, yet this bill’s passage did little to curb militarism or ensure accountability in defense spending.

  • 1992 - 102nd Congress: H.R.5075 - Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act - Another attempt to respect conscientious objection in taxation, highlighting the persistent demand for such provisions.

  • 1995 - 104th Congress: H.R.422 - International Peace and Security Assistance Act - Aimed at bolstering peace efforts internationally, but it failed to gain traction.

  • 2001 - 107th Congress: H.R.2459 - Department of Peace - Directly proposed a new department to prioritize peace, yet was sidelined.

  • 2005 - 109th Congress: S.1756 - Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act - Similar in intent to the 2001 bill, it too was not advanced.

  • 2008 - 110th Congress: H.R.1921 - Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act - A recurring theme, again showing public interest in ethical taxation.

  • 2013 - 113th Congress: H.R.808 - Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2013 - Despite the growing need for peace initiatives, this bill did not progress.

  • 2019 - 116th Congress: H.R.1111 - Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2019 - Continued efforts to institutionalize peace, but met with congressional inertia.

  • 2021 - 117th Congress: H.R.1111 - Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2021; H.R.4529 - Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act - These recent bills underscore a persistent public will for change, yet they have not led to actionable policy changes.

  • 2022 - 117th Congress: H.R.2617 - Performance Enhancement Reform Act - Aimed at enhancing government performance, including in peace initiatives, but still, it did not address the root issues of military spending and oversight.

  • 2023 - 118th Congress: H.R.1111 - Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2023 - The latest in a long line of peace proposals, indicative of a continuous push for peace without corresponding legislative action.

This pattern of introduction without enactment illustrates Congress’s repeated failure to heed public demand for peace over militarism. The lack of action has contributed significantly to the national deficit, which has ballooned into the trillions, largely due to unchecked military expenditure. This fiscal irresponsibility is exacerbated by the absence of budget oversight and the Department of Defense never having undergone a full audit, thereby allowing for the prioritization of globalist interests over domestic security and welfare, exhausting national resources, and effectively ransacking the treasury for purposes that do not align with American values or security needs.

Proposed Solution:

Case for a Department of Peace:

  • Addressing Historical and Legislative Gaps:

    • Implement policies to prevent war profiteering, possibly reintroducing an excess profits tax.
    • Act as a counterweight to the military-industrial complex, ensuring peace initiatives have a policy impact.

  • Strategic Framing:

    • Reframe Peace as Security: Position peace not as an alternative but as an integral part of national security strategy.
    • Economic and Moral Imperative: Highlight the financial and ethical benefits of peace over perpetual war.

Implementation Strategy:

  • Legislative Advocacy:

    • Advocate for a bill like H.R.1111 with added provisions for ethical defense spending and support for conscientious objection.

  • Public Engagement:

    • Campaigns to educate on the cost of war versus peace, leveraging historical lessons.

  • Coalition Building:

    • Engage with:
      • Veterans for Peace
      • World Beyond War
      • Peace Alliance
      • Unitarian Universalist Association
      • Amnesty International USA
      • American Friends Service Committee
      • Quakers (Friends Committee on National Legislation)
      • Global Peace Foundation
      • International Peace Institute
      • Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
      • Nonviolent Peaceforce
      • US Institute of Peace (acknowledging its limitations)
      • Pax Christi USA
      • Jewish Peace Fellowship
      • Muslim Peace Fellowship
      • Catholic Peacebuilding Network
      • Transcend International
      • Carter Center
      • Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies
      • The Conflict Resolution Center International
      • Ploughshares Fund
      • The Global Fund for Children
      • Seeds of Peace
      • The Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University
      • Peace Brigades International

Impact Assessment:

  • Ethical Governance: Uphold human rights by ensuring military actions and funding align with international laws and national ethics.
  • Policy Influence: Directly affect U.S. policy to incorporate peacebuilding as a fundamental approach.

Feasibility and Challenges:

  • Political Resistance: Overcome opposition from those benefiting from the status quo.
  • Cultural Shift: Promote a national identity that values peace as much as military strength.

Conclusion:

The proposal for a United States Department of Peace does not aim to weaken our military’s capacity to defend the nation but rather to enhance national security through a strategic emphasis on peacekeeping and conflict prevention. This initiative is designed to:

  • Fulfill Historical Calls for Ethical Governance: By addressing past and present calls for accountability, transparency, and ethical considerations in both military and fiscal policy, it honors the legacy of leaders like Eisenhower and whistleblowers like Smedley Butler who warned against the misuse of military power for profit.
  • Rectify Legislative Oversights: It aims to correct the imbalance where initiatives like the United States Institute of Peace have educational value but lack the authority to influence policy directly. The Department would act where the USIP has been limited, promoting peace at the policy level.
  • Support Conscientious Objectors: Recognizing the right to object to military spending on moral grounds, this department would facilitate mechanisms for ethical tax allocation, allowing for a more just and conscience-respecting fiscal policy.
  • Serve as an Ethical Framework for Peace: Rather than diminishing military readiness, the Department would complement existing defense structures by providing an ethical framework for peacekeeping, emphasizing diplomacy, and non-violent conflict resolution over military engagement wherever feasible.
  • Leverage Veterans’ Wisdom: Organizations like Veterans for Peace, composed of individuals with direct military experience, offer invaluable insights into the costs of war, both financially and humanely. Their involvement would ensure that the policy considers the real impact on military families and the broader society, advocating for peace to prevent unnecessary conflicts that drain resources and lives.
  • Address Defense Contracting Issues: The Department would scrutinize no-bid contracts and work towards ending practices that benefit defense contractors with histories of fraud, thereby ensuring taxpayer dollars are used more effectively and ethically.

In sum, the establishment of a Department of Peace would represent a significant evolution in U.S. policy, promoting a balanced approach where peace and defense are not seen as opposing forces but as complementary strategies for national and global stability. This department would not only advance peace as a policy aim but also restore and reinforce the protections of the Bill of Rights by ensuring government actions are transparent, accountable, and aligned with democratic principles.

Appendices:

  • Legislative References:

  • Resources:

    • Websites:
      -Peace Alliance - For education and advocacy on peace legislation.
      -World Beyond War - A global movement to end all wars.
      -US Institute of Peace - Despite its educational focus, provides resources on peacebuilding.
      -Amnesty International USA - For human rights analysis related to military engagements.
      -United Nations Peacekeeping - International peace efforts and resources.
      -Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies - Research and education on peace and conflict resolution.
      -Human Rights Watch - Reports on the ethical implications of military spending and arms trade.

    • Reports and Studies:

      • Economic Analysis on the Costs of War vs. Peace Initiatives:
        • “The Economic Value of Peace 2018” by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) provides a comprehensive analysis of how peace contributes to global economic health, contrasting the high costs associated with violence and conflict.
        • The Watson Institute’s “Costs of War Project” at Brown University quantifies the financial toll of post-9/11 military engagements, highlighting the economic benefits of redirecting funds towards peace initiatives.
        • Zachary D. Carter’s “The Price of Peace” explores economic policies post-war through the lens of John Maynard Keynes, offering insights into how peace can drive economic development.
      • Studies on Ethical Governance and Military Spending:
        • “Ethical Dimensions of the Defense Industry” by CIMSEC delves into the moral complexities of military procurement, presenting a case for ethical considerations in defense policy.
        • The University of California, Berkeley’s Military-Industrial Complex Seminar Series examines the economic and ethical impacts of defense spending on national governance.
        • “The Moral Dimensions of Asymmetric Warfare” by Shannon E. French in the Naval War College Review discusses the ethical implications of military actions, which can be extended to critique current military spending practices.
      • Auditing the Department of Defense:
        • The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has labeled the Department of Defense as a “High-Risk Area,” repeatedly citing the need for auditing due to its financial management issues and lack of transparency[10].
        • Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis (retired), in his piece “The Defense Department’s Broken Business Model,” argues for the necessity of audits to enhance efficiency and accountability within the DoD, emphasizing the views of military personnel who have seen firsthand the effects of unaccounted military spending[11].
        • Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has publicly supported the need for fiscal responsibility in defense, through speeches and writings, indicating support for comprehensive audits to ensure resources are used effectively[12].

Books
Butler, Smedley D. - “War is a Racket.”
Pinker, Steven - “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.”
Grossman, Dave - “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society.”
Chenoweth, Erica and Stephan, Maria J. - “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.”
Jeong, Ho-Won - “Peace and Conflict Studies.”

  • Legal Framework:
    • U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
    • ICCPR, Article 18.

  1. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation, 1961. ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. EPIC - USA Patriot Act. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - Analysis on PATRIOT Act. ↩︎

  4. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - Surveillance Under the USA/PATRIOT Act. ↩︎

  5. Justice Department - USA PATRIOT Act. ↩︎

  6. Wikipedia - Patriot Act. ↩︎

  7. Butler, Smedley D. “War is a Racket.” ↩︎ ↩︎

  8. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 on the power to declare war. ↩︎

  9. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18 on freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. ↩︎

  10. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on DoD financial management. ↩︎

  11. Davis, Lt. Col. Daniel L. “The Defense Department’s Broken Business Model,” Military.com. ↩︎

  12. Speeches and writings of Admiral Mike Mullen. ↩︎

6 Likes
2

This is an interesting idea. I’d be curious to see the results if it were implemented.

2 Likes
3

Thank you @jbschirtzinger

I’m looking forward to collaborating with those who have more legal expertise, veterans with wartime experience, and legislators, to refine this to be a decided improvement on the failed bills of the past. I do believe the American people would welcome this new policy as it would indeed help shift the entire trajectory of the world and bring our country’s reputation back to the beacon it once was. The policies that have been implemented by the corrupted institutions have manifested a much more frightening and dystopian era with an even more horrible future inevitability if we do not address this now.

2 Likes
4

It could act as a check and balance on the Dept. of War which might justify its existence all on its own.

3 Likes
5

This is what I was thinking. This proposal strikes me as a potential ‘checks and balances’ for the DOD and such.

I would support this, yet I believe that all government agencies should function on sunset clauses. A ‘DOP’ would need to set a precise goal for itself, a clear path, and ending with returning oversight to the core branches of federal government, and the Several States.

The solve we need is an end to the war industrial complex, not a management of the continuation of such.

I agree with your proposal, granted that in the future government agencies are charted for a specific amount of time. Less centralization > More centralization.

Edit: Granted that the DOD eventually functions under a sunset clause. The Commander and Chief should be in charge of piece-time defense. The only reason I support a standing army is due to strategic air/nuclear warfare.

3 Likes
6

This is genius.

2 Likes
7

:grinning:

1 Like
8

It’s definitely a half-step on that road.

1 Like
9

There’s the added danger now of the pharmaceutical industry exploiting bioweapons research for financial gain as evidenced by the new “Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (P-ABS)" agreement between big pharma and the WHO, giving them 20% of the profits from the therapeutics they then sell as a remedy for their lab produced chimeras. So as far as threats go, it’s not just nuclear warfare we have to worry about and have a strong deterrence against. The consequences of the 1986 act that originally shielded this industry from litigation for harms caused is far more disastrous than many realize. The greedy see a proverbial golden cash cow and the advent of this clear and present danger endangers us all. So, both departments are necessary for the foreseeable future.

1 Like
10

Extremely true. globalist organizations like the WHO and multi-national business (including big pharma) are industries/organizations that need checks and balances. I see now how a ‘peace dept.’ could have more uses.

Your many points for the need for a multi-faceted ‘peace dept.’ which manage any given organization that could be included in the exploitation of the health of our citizens and state of world, in terms of conflict.

The only issue I could see now being US agency involvement abroad, yet that has nothing to do with the agency itself but who the agency adheres to. Government agencies should take direction straight from Congress or the President, not from other government agencies or central non-profit agencies.

Granted, my mind was only thinking about conventional warfare. Sometime I forget about biological warfare, grave mistake. Have my vote.

11

Honestly this in an of itself can be it’s own experimental policy/proposal.

Being able to decide where your taxes go. This would be the perfect way for citizens to avoid misrepresentation by their representatives by forcing them to fund EXACTLY the programs and causes that their constituents want funded.

Say a governor wants to fund illegal immigration into their state but the citizens elect not to? Then they have to find private funding for it, etc.

1 Like
12

Something along these lines maybe?

1 Like