transcriptinterview2 - Page: 1 of 1

Transcript of interview about the Department of Peace
Page 2 of 3

Kucinich: It's always up to the President to make the decisions, but the President can only make the decisions within the context of who's inside offering alternatives. The whole idea of the Department of Peace is to give the President alternatives to armed conflict, to strengthen nonmilitary means of peace making. And actually work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed conflict, and develop structures that would help resolve things nonviolently and take a proactive approach. You don't wait until
things get deteriorated to the point where the only solution is to send the troops. You take a proactive approach which promotes international conflict prevention. And nonviolent intervention. Presidents need a variety of options. If the President is only getting one persistent direction on policy, it's going to be very difficult to be able to take a path, other than, in this case, war. We know, for example, the National Security
Strategy, which was made public in September 2002, calls for preventive war, as it's termed, preemption unilateralism. That's the doctrine that's being used to go into Iraq and could be the basis of an attack on Syria and North Korea.

QUESTION: You're suggesting that is President might have considered another
path if he'd just had other people to listen to. Kucinich: I think that we have to hold open that possibility.
Q: It seems if he was interested in an open field of ideas, he would surround himself with people like that and if he isn't, he won't, and I don't see what's going to change that.

K: If a President has a structure, which is a part of a cabinet, it's the job of the entire department to create the options. Now it's true, a President doesn't have to use them just as he doesn't have to accept the advice of Generals inside the Pentagon who told him, "Don't go to war against Iraq." Because we know there are people in the Pentagon who said, "Don't do this. We know there are people in the State Department who said, "Don't do this."

However, to have an entire department dedicated to producing ways of achieving a resolution of conflict without violence would be open to every president, and if a President chooses not to use it, just as in any other department in the federal government, that's up to him. Just having the structure there, though, what it does is informs the nation that the nation is organized around a set of principles that relate to nonviolence. This isn't only about international policy. It's about domestic policy as well.
It's about creating an awareness inside our society that we can work as a nation to meet the challenge of violence in our society which is affecting people in our cities every day. It's true, if a President doesn't want to use this, he doesn't have to, but imagine a President who asked for advice on addressing issues of violence around the world and in our country, who actually used a Department to do that, and you can change the country and the world and that's what this is about.

Q: How much of this bill, especially concerning where we are now, right after the problems the United States faced in the United Nations, how much of your bill is designed for foreign consumption?

K: I first introduced this bill in July 11, 2001 so it was two months before 9/11. In that period and prior to 9/11, I met with representatives of governments around the world and I've seen people around the world express an interest in such an approach. Now after 9/11, the heart of the world was open to the United States in willingness to meet the challenge of terrorism. We squandered that support, instead, by focusing narrowly on attacking Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. I'd like to see an opportunity to rebuild
the relationships between the United States and the countries of the world and certainly if the world community would work together to organize around principles of nonviolence, it could be a new beginning. That's what I'm hoping to achieve. I'm a board member of an organization called Parlimentarians for Global Action which is made up of individuals of dozens and dozens of countries and I talk to them all the time about these ideas.

Q: I was just curious about what the Congressperson perceives about what is different in this point of the history of the world, when the history of the world has been one of violence, what is the compulsion to identify an organizational structure now to do what we have known probably should have been done through millennia, what is it about this point in history?

K: We have to look at the number of nations which have the capability of destructive power. I think there are roughly 17 nations, who are possessing or trying to possess nuclear capability. 20 nations with biological weapons capability. 26 nations possessing or trying to get chemical weapons capability. And perhaps as many as 17 or more nations seeking or having the capability of delivering weapons with missiles. We're at a moment where all
things could fall apart. When the United States endorses a principle of violence, it resonates around the world. We're not the only nation who could claim the right to take a preemptive strike once we go in that direction.

So this is a turning point in the history of this country and the world. If our nation adopts policies of violent resolution of conflict and preemptive unilateralism, we set ourselves apart from the world community, but at the same time we influence the world community. We need to stop and reflect the direction we're going and ask, "Is this appropriate for the world? Is it appropriate for us to set on a path that today finds us in Baghdad, tomorrow
could find us in Tehran, or Damascus, or Pyongyang. Or could find Pakistan and India going at each other because we've endorsed preemption. I'm very concerned right now where this world is heading. The Department of Peace was going to be reintroduced this year anyhow, but the fact that its reintroduction comes at a moment when this whole idea of preemptive war has not really played out in terms of where it's headed. It's important to say,
"Maybe there's another way to do this. Maybe war isn't inevitable. Maybe we should stop and find a way to keep the world from blowing up."

K: It would be set up in such a way as to help finance local community initiatives that can draw on neighborhood resources to create peace projects that would facilitate the development of conflict resolution whether we're talking about a community or national level, and in that way, help to inspire national policies. It would also provide for public education programs. Imagine if our government made available to state departments, programs that would develop a peace curriculum and supporting materials so they could distribute them in each state. That's what this act would accomplish. There is a way to teach children these principles that would
slowly help to change the awareness in the country that violence is not something that is just expected or inevitable, that nonviolence can change this nation in profound ways. The whole idea of creating a department is to create an organized way to do this.

Q: What are you going to do about the rest of the world now that this administration has set a standard of reminding us often that we are the most powerful nation on earth and that we're going to make our policy and back it with force? The rest of the world is going to be building up, responding in kind. A Department of Peace seems a little out of step with the direction
the world is headed at this point.

K: Actually, it may be the very step we need to take. Why should America be alienated from the rest of the world? We need to change the direction we're going in. We need to cooperate with the world community on matters of not just international security but national security. We need the cooperation of the nations of the world in order to successfully meet the challenges of terrorism in our own country.

I think that most people in Washington understand that every aggressive act this country takes is inviting more violence against American citizens both abroad and here in our own country. The fact that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and others have cautioned that when America attacked, there was a higher level of danger in this country, seems to prove that. I don't believe the American people really want to be in a position where it's the United States against the rest of the world. I don't think we can sustain that position. Financially, in terms of our economy, it will ruin our economy. I don't think we can sustain it morally.

This Department of Peace proposal which has been backed by 47 members of Congress arrives at a time in our country's history where America is being given a choice about what direction it wants to go in. Does it want to go in a direction of unilateralism where America takes the responsibility for being, not only the policeman of the world, but being a major power, asserts its will and projects its will against any nation? Or do we want a nation that works cooperatively to get rid of nuclear arms, signs treaties to start to disband the huge armaments for chemical and biological weapons, to participate in land mines treaties and small arms ban, and all those things, which in international criminal court, things that form an international order? It is amazing to think that we have the technology and the world is
so connected that we can cover combat live in the streets of Baghdad, and yet that same connectivity exists in transportation, in all types of communication, on the web, and information technology, and that connectivity is actually the way the world works. In a way, we're going against the tide of history, we're going against this tide of human unity. We are creating a circumstance, which is, and of itself, inappropriate for the 21st century. It's an ideology somehow thrown up here, which comes from maybe 100 or 200 years ago of imperialism and it arrives in the 21ast century out of step, out of date, out of sequence.

Where did this come from? Because of all the connectivity we have in society, war should be archaic, war should not be happening. We should find a way to settle these differences and deal with people who want to stay outside this international community through a concerted effort internationally. The United States should not be going off on its own
asserting war. It's incomprehensible that we're doing this and we're in the 21st century still battling in the streets of foreign capitals.

Q: Is there a message here, philosophically, or perhaps even fiscally, attached to this bill that the United States should not have the most powerful military force in the world?

K: We have the most powerful military force in the world. That's a fact. We spend $400 billion dollars a year to the billion dollars Iraq is said to spend so there's no question what the outcome is going to be, whether we can win a war. The question is can we win a peace. There is reason to provide for a common defense, but we're on the offense here. It's not inevitable that having a military causes us to be driven toward war. This administration's policies however, in their National Security Strategy and their nuclear (posture review)?, put America in a very aggressive pose. It projects America's military power in a way that threatens other nations when it's not necessary to do this. We can still protect our country. I think the best protection of America is international cooperation. Then when we have people who would want to harm our country, then we'd work cooperatively with the world community to track them down and bring them to justice. That's not what this administration is about.

Q: Where can we get a list of the other 47 signers of this proposal?

K: We'll put the list on our congressional web site.

The cost of this war. Professor Nordhouse of Yale said that with the invasion and occupation and reconstruction the cost could run well in excess of a trillion dollars, I think he said between 1.6 and 1.9 trillion. I think when the American people start to understand that the concerns they have for better health care, prescription drugs, universal health care, for retirement security, for jobs, for better schools, are going to be swept aside in the pursuit of war, then the Department of Peace is going to be very practical in order to maintain some connection to the practical aspirations of the people in this nation because Americans do not aspire to war. If their leaders aspire to war, it means that the things that people want in terms of the quality of life, will not be obtained. So nothing is more practical than peace under those circumstances. That is why this legislation has 47 members of Congress on its first day of introduction and I expect as their citizens contact their members of Congress, there will be many more.

Q: My question has to do with the level of support there is. You mention a similar bill has been offered before. Could you review what happened with that? Does the President support this? Are there any people who can really bring this to fruition?

K: Some of the members of Congress who are supporting this are some of our congressional leaders, such as John Conyers, who is the ranking Democrat of the Judiciary, Jim Overstar, who is the ranking Democrat on Transportation, Charles Wrangle, who is the ranking Democrat on Ways and Means, Jose Serrano, who is the ranking Democrat on the criminal justice committee on appropriations. They're all Democrats. We are seeking the support of Republicans. We're not taking partisan note in introducing this bill. Although this is a very difficult time in this country's history, we're trying to seek to create circumstances where America's sons and daughters are not going to be in foreign capitals in the future. At this point, I don't believe the White House is supporting the bill, but I hope the President has a chance to look at it and would consider it, since he has stressed a strong interest in education. The educational component of this might appeal to the President. I'm hopeful as time goes on , this legislation which has 47 members of Congress in the first day it's introduced, will find its support broadening.

Q: I'm wondering how likely it is to get a Department of Peace established under this administration?

K: This is a proposal which this administration will have a chance to look at and make a decision as to whether or not they feel there's any need for it. They've established a Department of Homeland Security recently. They've strengthened the Defense Department. This administration, at some point, may see there's a need for some policy alternatives. We haven't seen the situation in Iraq play out. We haven't seen whether or not the aspirations
of some administration members to go into Iran and Syria will unfold. This administration will need some policy alternatives. They could certainly make it happen because they have the majority in the House and the Senate. I hold open the possibility of working with the administration on this if they're interested in doing this just as I worked with them on educational initiatives at the beginning of their term in Washington.

Q: Do you have a cost estimate on how much it would cost to set up another department?

K: In this particular Department, we're talking about tagging the cost at about 2% of the Defense Department budget, which means we look to initialize the department at about 8 billion dollars. It'd be roughly a little bit less than the Department of State.

Q: I think we're all in agreement that basically what you're saying is that part of this bill is about war and war is not the answer and the other part of the bill is keeping other types of violence off of our streets. I think the reason we're talking about this bill right now is because we're fighting in the streets of the cities right now. How much of the bill actually does address things that are going on at home and is there a possibility that that's what the focus becomes since it seems the administration as we've seen with the U.N., that they are going to be aggressive in certain ways?

Continue to page 3

Back to page 2