From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2006-02-18 11:35:51
www.ministryforpeace… Proposal from Christopher Titmuss A PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A NEW MINISTRY IN THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT: MINISTRY FOR PEACE AND RECONCILIATION Alternative names for this Ministry are:Ministry for FacilitationMinistry for Conflict ResolutionMinistry for Peace and Co-Existence The Ministry for Peace and Reconciliation will examine the causes and conditions for all manifestations of violence, whether inflicted upon ourselves, in the home, on our streets, in our schools, at work, between ethnic groups, between nations and organisations, and between nations and nations, and to implement a wide range of skilful means to resolve such problems at every level. Acts of violence by the nation, the organisation or the individual, is the blight of all civilised behaviour. The human species sinks to its lowest level when it deliberately inflicts suffering, pain and death on others through various perceptions, beliefs and determinations. The Minister for Peace and Reconciliation will have responsibility for the active development and cultivations of resolutions to forms of conflict with a wide network of human, financial and environmental resources. INTERNATIONAL a. In the 3rd Millennium, the priority of government is to explore a civilised approach to dealing with conflict rather than repeat the history of the last century with more than 100,000,000 people killed through wars. It is the task of governments, organisations and citizens to acknowledge the mistakes of the past, explore fresh initiatives in the present and point the way to the real welfare of the global community for the future. b. The Ministry of Peace and Reconciliation (subsequently referred to here as MPR) would recruit an army of facilitators, psychologists, psychotherapists, counsellors, diplomats, peace workers, NGOâs and committed individuals in the public and private sector. This new kind of army would be committed to conflict resolution at home and abroad. The current armed forces would also be extensively trained in peaceful resolution in any arena of conflict. c. It is important to point out that establishing of a new ministry is not rare. In the last generation, the British Government has established the Ministry for Children, the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Overseas Development in response to important needs. Many would argue that a Ministry for Peace and Reconciliation is sorely needed. It is vital that the Ministry for Peace and Reconciliation is independent of others ministries, rather than features of it absorbed into other departments. d. The Ministry for Peace and Reconciliation (MPR) would have a unique role in government life since it would deal directly with issues of violence, domestic and overseas, upon adults, children, animals and the environment. Owing to mental, verbal and physical abuse, fears stalks the lives of young and old alike, indoors and outdoors, at home and overseas. e. MPR would have the responsibility to provide the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Defence Minister with a wide range of alternative solutions to any proposed act of war. It would offer different options than the heads of the Armed Forces. It would be the task of MPR to ensure that statements of foreign and domestic policy were accurate, honest in the detail, free from spin, and free from any manipulation of the media and public. MPR would act as an advisor to all other departments and feature strongly in party policy to cut down public anger about the government. f. MPR would actively send teams invited to war torn countries for the emotional, mental, physical and environmental welfare of those suffering as a result of conflict. Training would be offered to the police forces, social workers and community leaders in war zones. These teams would co-operate and support people and their infrastructure to establish a culture of active citizenship. g. MPR will co-operate with all parties at home and abroad to establish agreements, treaties and implementation of UN resolutions to build a consensus of understanding about an enlightened way forward in areas of dispute. It will support UN Peace Keeping Forces. h. MPR will examine both short and long terms solutions employing a civilised approach to major issues of conflict. History shows that the victims of war harbour resentment with the result that the victims may well become the victimiser. Governmentâs authorisation for war or the organisations authorisation for acts of terror spirals equally into obscene violence upon men, women and children and their environment â regardless of motivations i. MPR will make public the list of arm sales to foreign nations, and the amount of money involved in arms sales. j. MPR will advocate careful analysis of the reasons behind violence and war. k. MPR would address equally the psychological and regional rationalisations behind war. Do the Prime Minister and War Cabinet show: 1. Obsession with power and control 2. >Religious, political, personal or historical beliefs 3. Over-identification with ethnic group or nation 4. Acts of retaliation 5. Acts of discrimination and prejudice, gross or subtle 6. Territorial claims 7. Pursuit of profit 8. Exploitation of environment (e.g. oil) 9. A means to unite people behind a leader 10. Unquestioning belief and identification with what is good and determination of what is evil? l. MPR would detail and list overseas aid, and ensure that such aid was used wisely and with discernment. MPR would increase substantially aid and NGO initiatives. DOMESTIC m. MPR would ensure that education from primary school to university would include practical programmes in conscious living, development of communication skills and ways to reach agreement in issues of dispute. These teachings and practices would become an essential part of the curriculum. n. MPR would act as bridge between government and voters so that citizens would experience trust and confidence in the government. MPR would work to reduce the wrath and cynicism of people against governments, who deceive its citizens or make decisions that profoundly concern thoughtful people â from making war, to selling of arms, to ill treatment of asylum seekers, to abuse of the judiciary, to refusal to permit a public inquiry. o. MPR would act as the conscience of the nation to re-establish trust between the dualities of society â government and people, public and private sector, divisions between ethnic groups, rich and poor, police and the public, employers and employees, employers and unions, parents and children, one neighbour and another. Fear, mistrust and anger reinforce these areas of national life. The significance of the role of mediation would be increased. p. MPR would appeal to the spiritual, religious, creative and intellectual creative resources in society to address issues of violence and conflict, locally and internationally. Television, radio and the media would feature the vital role of those working in the field of peace and reconciliation. q. MPR would promote and further expand initiatives for local communities to develop their relationships with each other through meetings, entertainment, the arts and mutual co-operation. The task of MPR would be to encourage diversity and a culture of inter-action through all aspects of daily life. r. MPR would greatly expand on some of the current programmes of the government to deal with conflict with widespread training for individuals to learn the art of facilitation and conflict resolution. Leading figures in the field would act as advisors. s. MPR would establish the Network of Facilitators. They would be the frontline team employing their skills to meet the challenges of today â such as sexual violence, pub violence, road rage, and abusive behaviour at football matches or in the home. The part that alcohol and drug abuse play in violence would come under increased scrutiny. t. MPR would develop new programs that relate to the societal challenges of school violence, guns, and racial or ethnic violence, violence against gays and lesbians, and police-community relations. The Network of Facilitators would work alongside community leaders and respected individuals who can point the way forward to dissolve tension. u. MPR would establish major new programmes in our prisons. Facilitators would mediate between wardens, prison officers and inmates with widespread use of teams of psychotherapists, counsellors and trained motivators for inmates. For staff and inmates, there would be provision for inner work that reduces aggressive tendencies through such programmes as stress reduction, meditation and yoga. Changes in diet, application of the arts and development of a culture towards inner change would be developed in prisons. Inmates would be train as facilitators. v. MPR would explore alternatives to the Western belief system that says that the main purpose for existence centres on production and consumption, privilege and influence. There would be a commitment to end violence on land, water and air used to satisfy the demands of an acquisitive and self-obsessed society. w. This determination will require the fullest co-operation of the community of philosophers, social scientists, theologians, peace workers and individuals with moral authority to work together to establish a safe, secure and sustainable world. Every area of life would enter into public debate about violence including entertainment, television, cinema, advertising and the obsession with status. x. In the longer-term vision, the government would commit itself to establishing a person in the Unarmed Forces for every person in the Armed Forces. For every Military Academy, there would be an equivalent Non-Military Academy. For every scientist in the public or private sector engaged in research for the armaments industry, there would be a scientist in the non-military sector of peaceful resolution through new technologies, developing infrastructure and constructive use of communication. The emphasis would be on constructive engagement with the world rather than pursuance of destructive engagement through more and more sophisticated weapons. The Prime Minister and the rest of the cabinet would be presented equally with non-military resolutions to international conflict, risk to lives, cost effectiveness, etc. y. In conjunction with the UN, MPR would be responsible for inspection and dismantling weapons of mass destruction at home and abroad including nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons. MPR would promote constructive engagement with other countries and convert our armaments industry towards peaceful use. In other words, the defence budget would systematically go down year by year with a corresponding increase in the budget for MPR. z. In making the change from war and violence, both at home and abroad, it will require an immense amount of consultation between nations and groups. It will require the building of bridges to understand the differences between nations, religions and cultures and a deeper understanding of the issues facing the poor, marginalised, refugees, economic migrants and the disenfranchised. aa. The cost for the Ministry for Peace and Reconciliation would be drawn directly from the defence budget. bb. The country would celebrate the role of great peacemakers and facilitators. The Ministry of Peace and Reconciliation would make a significant contribution to civilised culture to deal with personal, social and global problems. Such a Ministry would show true respect to the New Millennium. Final word: Violence in all of its ugly manifestation shakes and disturbs us, and the gratuitous violence or organised violence such as war, carries a further revulsion for all those who care about life. There is nothing more obscene than the wilful acts against the âotherâ with the sophisticated savagery of the means used to justify the end. For the âotherâ are like us â wishing to live in safety and security. We feel alarm when violence has freed itself from any of belief, any ideology, such as simply putting the boot in on an innocent bystander just for the sake of it but we ought to feel an equal sense of revulsion for the targetted bombing from the air of people on the ground, who are mere abstractions for the pilots, acting under orders, as they launch their bombs on men, women and children alike. There is no difference in the end result for those mercilessly traumatised for being in the way of political ambitions and ideological aims. We have become used to violence inflicted on others, perhaps numbed by it, deadened by the amount of violence that we have to absorb from Hollywood movies on war leaving us woefully indifferent to the grim plight of others. Violence in any form ranks as the most obscene form of intrusion into anotherâs life leaving individuals and entire groups of people frightened and helpless in the face of the abuse inflicted upon them, whether by professional armies, merciless organisations, street gangs or the unresolved aggression of the individual. For the creation of the âenemy,â or the âthreatâ and the need to eradicate or humiliate âthemâ says more about ourselves, and our inner shadows, than those we brutalise. Governments have consistently refused to acknowledge the relationship between the violence they inflict on other nations and the violence inflicted in the home or on our streets. The difference is in magnitude, not in the act, itself, namely the wilful intention to hurt, harm or destroy another. When a counsellor asked a client why he punched his wife in the face during an argument, he replied: âbecause she deserved it.” Donât Governments adopt the same view to a regime when they canât get their way? We have to address the whole machinery of violence from the inner to the outer, at home and abroad, acknowledging the destructive force for what it is, and the misery, fear and resentment that it breeds, thus sowing the seeds for further generations of violence. It is for the above reasons, and numerous other factors, that we desperately need a Ministry for Peace and Reconciliation to increase significantly our awareness and action to issues around violence on our Earth so we can move much further along the road to reconciliation and transformation. Christopher TitmussCo-Founder, Director of Dharma Facilitators ProgrammeE-mail: christopher@insightm…: www.insightmeditatio… This article comes from ministry for URL for this article is:www.ministryforpeace…
