Below the Radar: A Federal Peace Agency

By The Editorial Board

Ground-breakings are a dime a dozen in Washington, D.C., where cranes and high-rises glut the skyline. But the spade of dirt turned last week near the National Mall for the new headquarters of the United States Institute of Peace was a real milestone.

After a quarter century in temporary quarters, USIP is getting a permanent home. It testifies to the value of the institute’s work and changing perceptions about how best to advance the national security interest.

In 1984, a United States senator from West Virginia named Jennings Randolph led the charge for a federal entity that would focus on peacemaking and conflict avoidance. (He had first proposed the idea 39 years earlier) The United States at the time was spending $297 billion annually on a finely honed war-fighting machine. Senator Randolph and others argued the country also had a responsibility to throw at least a few dollars — initially $16 million — toward peacemaking and problem solving.

It was the Cold War era and to many, the idea of a peace “academy” (as it was initially called) sounded rather vague, quaint and idealistic. But advocates insisted that the new institute — a congressionally funded but independent, bipartisan entity — should devise practical applications to resolving international disputes. And over time, that’s just what it has done.

The institute has been deeply involved in the Balkans since the 1995 Dayton peace accords, helping war-weary Bosnia build a civil society. This has included reforming the constitution and building government structures that could help prepare the country for accession to the European Union.

The institute’s central role in managing the Iraq Study Group — which in December 2006 issued a pivotal report on a new approach to post-war Iraq — is well known. Less publicized are its efforts to work at the neigborhood level in Iraq to support cross-sectarian dialogue and promote tolerance. Among other projects, USIP has trained dozens of Iraqis as facilitators to mediate local conflicts.

The institute’s programs on religion and rule of law have been especially innovative. Staff are working with madrassas in Pakistan to prepare teaching modules on subjects relating to peace, tolerance and pluralism; organizing exchanges between American Muslims and their Iranian counterparts; organizing peace councils in Darfur and producing a book in which Muslim scholars discuss reforming Muslim attitudes on peace and conflict management.

They are also working on strengthening Afghanistan’s supreme court and helping to develop an integrated justice system in south Sudan where 60 tribal systems now exist.

As its top officials admit, the institute is not intended to be a prime mover in foreign affairs. Its role is as a nimble change agent in an era when American security can be threatened as much (or more) by a failed state embroiled in sectarian strife as by a strong state unleashing a powerful army.

The United States needs a well-funded, technologically advanced and highly skilled military. It also must invest in protecting and advancing its interests through other means. One mechanism is the United States Institute of Peace, which can attempt possible solutions that government cannot. Another is the State Department, which for too many years has been underfunded for its diplomatic work.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

David in NC June 12, 2008 · 7:38 pm

Profound thanks to the editorial board for your attention to this important work. It is essential that we move forward with it, regardless of how many eyes roll at the thought.

As a society we are cynical about peace efforts, thinking that the idea of world peace is unrealistic. It may well be, but that’s not the only goal. The question we must ask is not “Is world peace possible?”, but “Can we be doing any better than we are right now?” If the goal is to change the world for the better, it is not naive. The goal isn’t to fix the world, but to improve it.

I cringed a little, though, as I think Senator Randolph would, at your description of the agency’s focus as “conflict avoidance.” Peacemakers are the last to avoid conflict. In order to transform that conflict into something fruitful, they step directly toward it.

David Hazen June 13, 2008 · 1:13 am

The United States needs a “well-funded, technologically advanced and highly skilled” peace-building department of the government that sits on the President’s cabinet and has real power to be that “prime mover in foreign affairs.” I suggest support for the initiative to create a U.S. Department of Peace, which would include the USIP and have far more institutional heft to prevent the violence, domestic and international, that costs this nation in the trillions of dollars each year and could be prevented at a fraction of the cost yet much more than is being spent on the USIP. The elephant in our living room is the violence in the adolescent American psyche that needs the tough love of a Secretary of Peace to disarm itself before it destroys us all.

JWF June 13, 2008 · 11:29 am

What a colossal waste of money. The money would be better spent on some missiles.

Alexis in Washington, DC June 13, 2008 · 12:39 pm

To JWF, a missile for 16 mil? That would be a bargain. Hopefully, when Obama takes over, he creates a cabinet-level Department of Peace and Love. We need more of this now than white-haired warmongers.

Wyovox June 13, 2008 · 1:00 pm

Give peace a chance.

Catherine Busch-Johnston June 13, 2008 · 1:29 pm

I produced a documentary on the woman who’s idea and energy actually started all of this. Her name was Rose Lucy, and yes, it was initially called The United States Institute of Peace.

The Lucy’s had seven children and adopted a Korean child during the war. Mr. Lucy was a mailman and Rose Lucy was a stay at home mom. Kindness and compassion permeated family life as both parents and children, from youngest to oldest, regularly read and discussed world issues during dinner and family meetings. During a motor vacation across country one summer, they stopped to visit the Air Force Academy. Once back in the car, enamored by what he saw, their oldest boy stated that he wanted to attend the Air Force Academy.

A discussion ensued and that’s when Rose and her husband realized the United States was spending billions of dollars to train young people for war, yet there was absolutely no money or effort allocated to educate young people to understand and promulgate the ways of world peace. The Academy of Peace all started there, in that station wagon one hot summer afternoon.

Rose Lucy’s half hour program is one of eight in the series: “The Face of Wisdom: Stories of Elder Women”

Bill Becker June 13, 2008 · 2:01 pm

A suggestion — pass the word: always use the term “warlovers” rather than “warmongers.” It goes deeper. (See Alexa above.)

Peter Zimmerman June 13, 2008 · 6:54 pm

The United States *had* a “Department of Peace” until April Fools Day in 1999. At that point the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) was abolished at the insistence of the late Sen. Jesse Helms. ACDA, for more than 30 years, negotiated arms control agreements, verified that our partners were in compliance, and argued vigorously for arms control and disarmament.

It was the professional home of, over the years, hundreds of the top American scientists and officials — able to best the Pentagon at logic because ACDA always did its homework and always stuck to facts, not fancies like SDI. The folding of ACDA into the State Department, which, under George W. Bush and John Bolton, quickly broke up the scientific and regional specialty teams was one of the great mistakes of US Foreign Policy. The next Administration should reconstitute ACDA as soon as possible so that, once again, Arms Control would have a seat at the NSC table with a Director who has the full right of access to the President.

I had the great honor to be the last chief scientist of the Arms Control & Disarmament Agency.

Michael Hechmer June 13, 2008 · 8:38 pm

Actually, the first proposal for a Department of Peace was made by Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, our first Surgeon General, and the Father of American Psychiatry. His passionate writing on this subject would still be viewed as extremely radical in the American media today. Hopefully, someday we will get there.

Michael Rush Hechmer
Westford, Vermont

AtomicWarBaby June 14, 2008 · 3:30 am

A would suggest using instead of “warmongers” or “warlovers”, the term “warLUSTERS”, for the Bush Regime’s “VULCANS” & their ilk, have exhibited a perverted LUST for War!

They have even twisted the Star Trek Dr. Spockian “VULCAN” philosophy, which would certainly not have launched a “PRE-EMPTIVE” War & Occupation of IRAQ. Someone needs to do a “MINDMELD” on Cheney & Bush & find out what other crazy wingnut plans they have, before they are ushered out the door: Attack IRAN? Egg on ISRAEL to attack IRAN (more likely, God help us!)

LUST for War, & a LUST for WAR PROFITEERING!

Virginia Harris June 14, 2008 · 7:21 pm

How refreshing to have a positive development for once! “Peace” is such a lovely, hopeful word, in contrast to the violence and destruction of “war.” And the small but important efforts that the USIP has undertaken give heart to those of us who espouse the coming-together of humankind rather than the promulgation of armed conflict in too many areas of our fragile world.

Jeanne June 15, 2008 · 2:14 am

Thank you for mentioning the USIP, if not in the news, at least in an editorial.

We, the people, need to know more about this organization. If USIP is “below the radar”, then the media should adjust it’s focus.

sierra June 15, 2008 · 12:39 pm

Note that we fund 22% of the United Nations, the ineffectiveness of which prompts calls for a our own peace agency.

George W. Hayduke June 15, 2008 · 2:02 pm

Like Orwell said in “1984,” war IS peace.

Terry B June 15, 2008 · 2:53 pm

It is ironic, the NeoCons at PNAC and the 151 Congressmen and Congresswomen who invest in warloving stocks and industries feel threatened by the success possibilities of a Peace Institute.

What a difference new optics will bring.

Richard Pelz June 15, 2008 · 3:09 pm

Your brief history of the origins of the U.S. Institute of Peace omits reference to the important contribution of Senator Hubert Humphrey.

kathleen June 16, 2008 · 7:19 am

a body we desperately need. check this out:

//www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38775.html

and by the way, why is the times ignoring this important series?

er June 16, 2008 · 8:50 am

For GWB, this is good PR for a president who painted himself with the colors of a “War President” and has failed at every major initiative he has undertaken. For the people, this is a good *small* step in the right direction. Of course, recovery from the “W Years” will take so much away from what should be going on to propel America forward, the intended results may take an entire generation longer than would have under a more competent presidency. We will need a special war restorations act, for the U.S. — just to get back on track.

sierra June 16, 2008 · 5:24 pm

I submitted a quip earlier about the ineffectiveness of the existing United Nations in bringing any measure of peace to the world, but of course a federal agency devoted to peace would be an entirely different matter. ;-)

It’s worth remembering that we Americans are not omnipotent, and have only marginal influence on the rest of the world. USIP’s work to form mediating institutions in war-weary Bosnia and Iraq is no doubt laudible, but in both cases came in the wake of heavy warfare. (Likewise, Japanese mediating institutions were born on the flight deck of the USS Missouri.) It’s difficult to spin a scenario where these people could be effective at preventing ethnic violence in the Balkans or Saddam Hussein’s brutality towards Iraqis. What would motivate a leader such as Robert Mugabe to allow American officials to set foot within his country to counter the mayhem he is causing? Perhaps they could do more good in nearby South Africa to try to prevent the massacre of Zimbabwean refugees, but their role would be relegated to a reactive one, just like the UN at its worst.

Faced with this unfortunate limitation, I believe such an institution succumbs to the sort of impulse David Hazen’s comment represents. Since we have more control over our own actions than over the actions of others, it quickly focuses on what we can do about whatever less-than-placid tendencies we ourselves may harbor, and thus becomes yet another occasion for pointless self-flagellation.

We have to be careful not to be hypnotized by the magical incantory power of words. There is simply nothing about the act of saying that an agency is going to devote itself to world peace that makes it any more likely to bring that peace about. What exactly are they going to do that’s so different than what the State Department is already up to?

dave w. June 16, 2008 · 10:31 pm

trillions for the War Dept, (now known by its Orwellian name Defense Dept), mere millions for US Institute of Peace. Where your treasure is there is where your heart is.

Candy June 17, 2008 · 8:53 am

The instituion of peace or whatever the ___ you want to call it is a waste of taxpayer money. Not having peace is not what killed all the victims of terrorism in world since the 80s’. Not having peace is not what cause the people of Sudan and Congo to be killed…….

You have a duplication of efforts…the UN and the US State Department…the counsel of south american states…..the EU….Organization of Asian States……I could go on and on…There has been peace treaties, and agreements too.

In order to have peace you must have law and order. You also must have strong governments and a military to subdue foes and implement your will.

Like Teddy Roosevelt said “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

sierra June 17, 2008 · 1:26 pm

No sooner did I warn against being “hypnotized by the magical incantory power of words” than Virginia Harris provides a perfect example of what I mean. Yes, “peace” is a much nicer word than “war.” So can we feel more refreshed and positive now that we have a “Department of Defense” and not a “Department of War”?

David Hazen June 17, 2008 · 4:02 pm

Re: Sierra,

The State Department is not mandated to deal with non-state paramilitary groups or violence within the USA. The USIP and to an ever greater extent, a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence would provide researched alternative processes, not to end all conflict, but to resolve conflicts early in their development without the expense of violence and its aftermath. The ethnic violence situations that you mention, yes, they are difficult, and with adequate funding and expertise are avoidable. For every failure there have been numerous successes. According to political scientist Barbara Harff, between 1989 and 2005 the number of campaigns of mass killing of civilians decreased by 90 percent.

Re: Candy,

I share the anger, grief, and cynicism of everyone who believes peace is impossible, who equate “peace” with weakness, who accept that war and fighting are necessary and normal. However, fighting creates a static situation in which the expectation that the person who disagrees with us will not change becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fighting only suppresses conflict, it does not resolve it, nobody really wins, everybody loses.

Yes, enforcement with arms is necessary when boundaries (laws) have been violated. The desperation that drives people to cross those boundaries can, and will, be addressed not by authoritarian will power but by the joy, wonder, and power of people working together in community.

We need to expose ourselves to the pain of learning how to remain in the conversation about building a world that meets everyone’s needs, instead of shutting down or lashing out to be in control with armies and bombs. Peace is not a destination, it’s a journey.

sierra June 17, 2008 · 5:36 pm

David Hazen replies: The ethnic violence situations that you mention, yes, they are difficult, and with adequate funding and expertise are avoidable. Actually, no, not if your well-funded experts are denied entry to the zone of conflict.

I well understand the State Department has no authority over domestic affairs. When I asked how this group would conduct itself any differently from the State Department, I meant in the context in which it would be needed most, prime examples being Zimbabwe, pre-war Bosnia/Iraq, Sudan, etc. With little useful to do in these areas, I believe such a group would tend to involve itself in areas where it is needed least, prime example being the “violence in the adolescent American psyche.” Call me a cynic, but it would only be a matter of time before the group issued a report criticizing violence on television, gaming devices, hurtful myspace comments, and rap music.

For every failure there have been numerous successes. According to political scientist Barbara Harff, between 1989 and 2005 the number of campaigns of mass killing of civilians decreased by 90 percent. Excellent news, but to what existing processes does Ms. Harff attribute such spectacular progress?

Addressing Candy, you say: Fighting only suppresses conflict, it does not resolve it, nobody really wins, everybody loses. Some counter-examples immediately spring to mind: Japan, Germany, and perhaps, judging by the impressive gains since 1989, the Soviet Union.

Mahmoud June 18, 2008 · 12:57 pm

please look at work of the USIP.
It isn’t completely just for peace.
It has a point of view and it is not a neutral bystander.

USIP leadership is not working, for example, for a just peace in Palestine.
It is working for a solution that favors one side over the other,
and wants to built peace on a foundation of injustice.