The Australian Government was asked in 1937 to create a Ministry for Peace. Australians are still waiting for the Government to do so.
In 1937 the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom recommended the Ministry’s creation to the Australian Government. The Government refused, arguing that it would duplicate the work of the then Department of External Affairs and besides the “publicly declared objective of the Australian Government was the promotion of harmonious relations with all countries” and so such a proposal was unnecessary.
In 1982, the United Nations Association of Australia again raised the issue and received much the same reply.
Machiavelli warned us about this problem back in 1514. He advised that there is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry out than initiating change in government. On the one hand, the people who have something to lose will oppose the idea, while others who may benefit from it have only lukewarm support for it.
But the idea of a Ministry for Peace has not died. On the contrary, there are now similar campaigns in other countries.
The reasons such a Ministry haven’t changed.
Creating such Ministries is a very practical way of working for peace.
The Ministry proposal is based on a principle of organizational change: can an old institution create and implement new policies? Such institutions are often too locked into the past to adopt new worldviews. They have too much invested in justifying their previous policies. Therefore, a new quest for peace requires a new institution.
Similarly, national governments are often structured on the basis of competitive bidding between ministries. This gives rise to a pecking order of ministries, usually with treasury at the top, environment at the bottom and peace virtually non-existent. Thus, a response to a country’s problems is usually fragmented.
There is no overall national ministry working for a country’s long-term peace interests. A Ministry for Peace would provide an institutional focal point for a country’s peace policies.
A Ministry for Peace would emphasize the importance of the non-violent resolution of conflict in international politics. Some progress has been made in domestic politics in some countries but a great deal remains to be done in international politics. Such a Ministry would provide an avenue for the expression of people’s desire.
Such a Ministry would institutionalize the peace perspective in the government. In politics, where you stand depends on where you sit. This helps explain why ministers change their views when they are moved from one department to another. There is no cabinet minister specifically engaged on peacebuilding activities.
Some of the new Ministry’s work could come from existing tasks being carried out by other ministries, such as the disarmament work. This will mean that there will not necessarily be a large increase in government expenditure consequent upon the Ministry’s creation because, to some extent, it will be more a matter a case of redeploying existing staff and facilities.
Finally, it is interesting to recall just how many well established ministries were controversial when they were created, such as ministries for the environment. There was no such explicitly named ministry anywhere in the world before the 1950s – and now each country has one.
The creation of the Ministry for Peace will not mean that the peace movement will become redundant. The movement will be very important until global peace breaks out, with or without Ministries of Peace. The establishment of Ministries for the Environment around the world has not made the environment movement redundant. Instead, the ministries have enabled the movement to do its work even more effectively, not least by providing a cabinet minister as a focal point for some of its campaigns.