DoPeace

Empowering civic activism toward a culture of peace.

This area is designed to specifically discuss the "Legislation" section of the strategic plan. (Download link for whole plan is below).

We want to know specifically:
• What excites you about it?
• What concerns do you have?
• What could be made better?
• What are ways you want to implement it personally and with your local teams?

Section Contents:

LEGISLATION (C4)

Unlike anytime in history, an awareness of the importance of violence prevention in the United States and peacebuilding work internationally permeates the national discourse and the atmosphere in Washington. President Obama's agenda calls for an "End to the Dangerous Cycle of Youth Violence" and notes the administration's support of "innovative local programs" aimed at the prevention of youth violence. Similarly, officials in the State Department , USAID , and Department of Defense leadership advocate for innovative civilian-driven efforts to build peace across societies in conflict.

The growing consensus in Washington obviously didn’t just ‘happen.’ It is a reflection of an awareness that old ways of business are not working and a reflection of the advancement of the entire field of peacebuilding. The growing consensus is driven by the continuous and demanding work of practitioners on the ground that day in and day out build and sustain relationships with at-risk young people, by the work of peacemakers who delicately bring together divided populaces at war, and by researchers who document the efficacy of peacebuilding work. And the consensus is building because we as advocates, in partnership with our allies, have organized for years district by district and state by state in support of the position that peace is possible and the time for community and legislative change is now. Because of our collective efforts policy makers are seeking to invest in peacemaking, but the question remains: “how?”

At this critical moment, we want to be part of the solution to the ‘how? question’. To do so requires a well-tailored and timely approach to legislation that can specifically meet this challenge. To date our legislative strategy has focused directly on lobbying for a US Department of Peace. While we have made great progress raising awareness and understanding of the importance of peacebuilding, for three consecutive congressional sessions we have not moved past 74 Congressional co-sponsors for each newly presented bill. This challenge has motivated us to reflect on and evaluate our strategy. We have come to recognize that we have lobbied for a Department of Peace to achieve two fundamental goals. One, to create a structure in the federal government that makes peace a priority and gives it a voice at the highest level of power. Second, to establish and enhance peacebuilding programs both in the United States and internationally.

Our greatest success to date is that we have built public and Congressional widespread agreement for the need to support and fund peacebuilding efforts. Yet we have not built similar agreement about changing the structure of our government to meet that need. We believe that to enhance our capacity to effect change in both areas we should look at separating these two fundamental goals into distinct initiatives: Programmatic Change and Federal Structural Change.

Targeted legislative change increases peacebuilding nationally, successfully expands our presence in the House and Senate, builds allies, and serves as a micro model of the larger benefits of the Structural Change we are ultimately seek. By developing tailored strategies for each we will more effectively see peacemaking results on the ground in the short-term while simultaneously building support around the longer-term structural solution.

Structural Change
Department of Peace

a) Engage Congress

To support the Department of Peace proposal we will engage policy makers throughout the country about the Department of Peace and document their excitement and concerns. We hold that the Department of Peace is the most comprehensive measure to date that provides strong structural support to sustainably prioritize violence prevention and peacebuilding efforts in our federal government. The bill itself has changed over the years and will continue to develop with more research and committee mark-ups. We want to know from our policy makers- do they support the US Department model? If not a Department, then what? Documenting the positions of congressional leadership grants us a comprehensive understanding upon which we can build consensus around a structure in the government that truly makes peace a priority.

b) Research and Analyze The Department of Peace and Infrastructures for Peace in the Federal Government

DC staff and interested volunteers will spearhead research and analysis of the proposal to illuminate the best federal structure to build peace. Through Roundtable Discussions we will bring together practitioners, policy experts and members of the relevant departments and agencies to assess their current capacity for peacebuilding and identify ways in which a federal reorganization may strengthen and support their work. We will build an academic and evidence-based case for structural reform.

Programmatic Change

Pass and Fund the Youth PROMISE Act:
The Youth PROMISE Act is a perfect example of a Congressional proposal that if passed could significantly enhance the capacity of our government to support peacemaking programs. The Youth PROMISE Act is an innovative piece of legislation aimed at empowering community stakeholders to drive local violence prevention and intervention efforts. We will work in conjunction with Rep. Bobby Scott’s (D-VA) office, and in partnership with a broad-based coalition, to pass Youth PROMISE Act through the House by the end of 2009, and then through the Senate and appropriations committees by the end of 2010.

Introduce or Endorse International Peacebuilding Legislation: Guided by advice from an advisory council we will introduce or endorse legislation aimed at supporting those internationally who are actively engaged in applied peacebuilding in areas plagued by violence, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, and Darfur.


To facilitate these two goals (programmatic and structural) we have identified some needed actions:

Advisory Councils: We will establish and facilitate Advisory Councils composed of experts from the fields of international peacebuilding, youth violence prevention, post-incarceration community re-entry, and government reform that can uniquely advise the Peace Alliance on policy matters. We will build these groups around the coming year's priorities to ensure we continuously have both domestic and international initiatives.

Survey Network: We will gauge the interest of those in our entire network to guide our legislative priorities as we continue to maintain alignment between the policies we advocate and the priorities of the network.

Develop and Join Coalitions: A plethora of advocacy and service organizations are taking action in support of peacebuilding. We will intentionally connect with our peers both at the local and national levels to grow our collective efforts and collaborate on focused strategies that we will implement together.

Strengthen Congressional Leadership: Leadership on the Hill remains an extremely important aspect of passing legislation. We will continue to strengthen our relationships with House Representatives and members of Senate to support our current legislative initiatives. We will:

• Target key congressional members and their staff determined by committee placement, political clout and personal interest and their staff to build leadership and champion our legislative initiatives. Including developing leadership strategies within the congress among their colleagues

• Develop relationships with all members of the appropriations committee in both houses and work both locally and nationally to strengthen their commitment to our legislative goals.

Views: 7

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

a. I think you can ask the question of lawmakers what their opinion is of a Department of Peace model, AND I would not ask any questions in such a way as would suggest that we might abandon the idea. I am chiefly involved to see a Dept of Peace in this country and would not be happy to see this effort morphed into some other politically expedient effort. I support the YPA chiefly to demonstrate what, on a smaller scale, the DoP would do...in other words, as a method to further the cause of enactment of the DoP.

b. I like the idea of trying to bring together these different disciplines and policy makers, although I would like to hear specifics on how the TPA purports to engage them, and maintain a relationship with them. As to DC staff and volunteers spearheading any efforts, again I believe the staff are there to facilitate the field, and therefore there should be efforts made to engage the field before any decisions are made that the field is requested to support, as is being done in this instance.

Programmatic Change:

1) HR 1064 is a good model of what the DoP could do, and should be advocated as such. I would like to see HR 808 continue as front and center as our chief goal. I like the language used "We hold that the Department of Peace is the most comprehensive measure to date that provides strong structural support to sustainably prioritize violence prevention and peacebuilding efforts in our federal government."

2) Advisory councils? How does the TPA propose this is formed and by whom? Is this a national council or local councils, as are perhaps borrowed from the YPA legislation? I believe there should be some kind of adoptive process of any advise given.

3) Survey Network: I believe more engagement than surveys is required. I suggest rather than a conference with varioius speakers that we hold Dept of Peace Congresses in D.C....where we actually come to work to determine a mutual set of priorities and strategies created by the field.

4) Develop and Join Coalitions: Agreed, especially for purposes of educating the general public as to the cost effectiveness of peace economies.

5) Strengthen Congressional Leadership: What is stated is a conclusion, which I think everyone would agree is a good idea in terms of both the appropriations issue, and developing leadership stategies. My question would be what methods would be used to do this and who would be involved in this process?

I'm concerned that our directon is often, with the very best of intentions, created and presented to the field by TPA with very little ability for engaging. I am particularly grateful for this social network which allows for much more interaction and discussion on these issues. There are many people however who have not joined this network, so I think there needs to be a sustained effort at getting our DoPeeps on this network and engaging.
Thank you Matthew for your dedication and your hard work. TPA is lucky to have you. I applaud TPA for revisiting their strategy. We have lofty goals. I think we all hold the goal in our visions as we participate in this movement for a more peaceful future. It can seem overwhelming and disheartening because it is an "all systems break down requiring an all systems response." (MW)

We all know "Why" (duh). We all know "When" (now). The primary question is "How"?. As I go throughout my work day I must continually remind my co-workers and contacts that the law is not made from the top down, although it often appears that way. It is actually created from the bottom up. A single person challenges an unjust law; an oppressed group rallies against the oppressors; etc.

My enthusiasm for TPA is waning, not my passion for the bill or it's intention. My time and financial commitments have been unrelenting...until recently. In my opinion, the TPA has not made progress beyond the 74 supporters for many reasons, primarily timing. However, just as public sentiment grew in our favor and the visibility of HR808 and a U.S. Department of Peace was gaining momentum, it seems as though we failed to ride the wave. It's almost as if we said "Whoa, that wave is too big. I think I'll just practice on these small waves a little bit longer". I understand the desire to begin supporting legislative bills and initiatives aimed at fostering and supporting peacebuilding efforts. I concurrently serve on the board of a non-profit that promotes peace comprised of children. So I get it. I understand why TPA would support other efforts, such as the YPA, but not to the exclusion of our primary mission.

I resonate with Linda when she states "I am chiefly involved to see a Dept of Peace in this country and would not be happy to see this effort morphed into some other politically expedient effort". I am in this because it is complex, it is difficult, there will be times when we want to give up, but that isn't who we are. We know that we can accomplish what we are here to do...establish a US Department of Peace. Nothing less. We know the time is NOW. In fact, even when fundraising, our goal was to obtain financial support until the time this goal was made a reality. I'm not sure what goal I am supporting anymore.

I am a business executive. I have seen leadership come and go, business plans come and go...full circle and back around again, but it's the people in the trenches that execute the "HOW" We have a creative group of volunteers and I know that there isn't anything we can't accomplish if allowed to unleash our creativity, and more importantly, our voices.

This post doesn't seem to have much constructive feedback, but I did want to share my thoughts and feelings from connecting with and watching the disconnection of many volunteers who felt that the TPA did not seem to be action-oriented. Rather than be a vessel for the populace to gather and take action, many have felt stifled by restrictions of association, changing priorities as well as political and financial struggles.

My sincere hope is that the primary engagement begins with the volunteers, supporters, and activists who are inspired to take action. We should expect every congressional visit to be a homerun, if not the first at-bat, then maybe the second or the third. It doesn't matter who is pitching, just let me swing my bat. (Oh brother, I don't even like baseball season, I'm all about football).

I am eager to see how the new strategy develops and I will be here to cheer us on. If I could have one wish...it would still be to have a highly trained professional NVC counselor like Miki, mediate with two opposing congressional members on their most polarizing topic to demonstrate how powerful the science of peace is when you get through the politics and into the heart of the matter of humanity.
I'm digesting the plan slowly. The Peace Alliance seems to be maturing and expanding into a peace-building *corporation* of types.

Thank you, to those of you who drafted this. It looks like alot of time and effort was put into creating this. Structure and goals are always good. And I think steering away from focusing on a Department of Peace, will likely attract new allies and partners and funding. I see how this helps to build a culture of peace.

And as each year passes, better ideas pop up, changes happen and so do different approaches. I can roll with that. I get that. I get that.

I will say, the bill may not have gone beyond 74 cosponsors. But it sure as heck went beyond the 74 volunteers it had in the beginning! That it is phenomenal.

However, regardless of the status quo and in my humble opinion, the DOP bill has the greatest chance of becoming something in the Executive Cabinet within the next eight years. I believe President Obama when he quietly said "We're working on it. We're working on it." after a volunteer held the blue PA brochure directly in front of his face.

Taking Action is important for the bill and for engaging your grassroots network.

Visibility of the DOP bill, is key. And this is where I kind of, sort of, differ, from the strategic plan. Since the Board and the Staff are open to feedback, that's mine. Please take it into consideration as we move through this process together.

Thanks!
Attachments:
Thanks for the input all! The dialogue continues.

Ana, I'm with you about the next eight years. I really feel like something is opening and so much possibility is in the air regarding the listening and acceptance of having a Dept. that would focus on peace. It's certainly more possible now than ever before. I'm excited to think about how we can grow into an organization that is so sophisticated in our efforts that we cover all basis to make it happen. It will require expanded support at all levels of our organization. My hope is that this plan is bold enough to capture the imagination and willingness of hundreds and eventually thousands of additional committed activists to help make it so.

I, personally, would like to see a new style of peace movement, that is much more based around cultivating all that we know to be possible. And to have a huge reach and breadth, much like say, organizations like Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the thousands of other orgs have done for environmentalism. When I step back and think about all the ripe opportunity for change in the area of peacebuilding, I can't believe there is such an organized void in support of this field. That's not to detract from the many, many people working on the ground and trying to organize around peace, I just seems clear to me that as a 'known field', the work of applied peacebuilding has not even come close to hitting it's stride, say the way environmentalism has. I look forward to the day when everyone knows what peacebuilding is, when we have the government structures in place to support it, and when we have jobs for millions of on the ground peacebuilders in the U.S. and around the world doing the work that could make such a huge difference.

I'd like our organization to be a big part of cultivateing that and bringing it to the next level. Someone, at some point, has to. What I love about the direction the plan is going, is that it lays a strong groundwork to move in that direction. I'm looking forward to the continued dialogue and other inputs to see how we can craft a kick-ass final plan.

Thanks for the conversation so far.
I agree Matthew. I would like to see our organization be a big part of cultivating awareness of peacebuilding. I loved reading your text "I can't believe there is such an organized void in support of this field". Me too!!! I had always hoped that we could be the "Mothership" so to speak, where all of the millions of peacebuilding individuals and organizations could be connected. One doesn't exist. For instance, I needed to locate a qualified NVC practictioner in another part of the country who I could use to mediate a brewing "situation" and avoid unnecessary litigation. I had successfully garnered the support of the executives at my workplace to invest in the expense as a means to avoid a more costly likely outcome of traditional methods that supported the status quo. The status quo is hiring lawyers to engage in costly standoffs. I contacted the DOP to see if they could steer me to a person or group where I might find such an expert in that geographical area. They couldn't help me. I contacted Miki's Bay Area group, but they didn't engage in telephonic conference sessions and they didn't weren't able to refer me to anyone in the state where this conflict was occurring. I was disappointed. I thought to myself, "Wow, I am advocating for these expert organizations and individuals but when I have to produce the them, I can't!" That was a huge blow to the gut for me. I realized that I couldn't readily respond to a demand for resources. I felt internally that in some way it discredited my work with TPA. If I want to find a doctor in the State of California, I can check if I already know their name, but I can't simply query the database to locate a licensed dermatologist in my area. In order to do that, I have to Google or search my insurance company database by specialty.

I wish that there was a way that TPA could "Be the Bill" by becoming that resource for the local communities. A central place where the organizations and individuals who provide so many wonderful services and results can be found by the organization and individuals who seek to hire them or fund them. Can we put that on the idea list? That would be...in your words...a kick-ass plan. :-D
I completely agree David. I have always been a firm believer that a goal is the natural by product of the effort. We can simply act as if we are already a Department of Peace. Can you imagine the surprise of the populace once they discover that this department, THIS department, that is so effective in ways that they could never have imagined...didn't have the legitimacy they thought??!?!
That's when our efforts are so overwhelming that we just wake up one morning to find out that our government voted in an "official" Department of Peace. We don't have to wait for them. They are waiting for us!
I am new to awareness of this organization, and am not qualified to comment on the details of the plan. However, I will take the opportunity to make a couple of general comments.

My first reaction is to not favor a Department of Peace on a national governmental level, because of my Orwellian fear that it will, in fact, act as a Department of War. Rather, I would like to see the culture of peace permeate all government agencies. However, on second thought, I conclude that there may be some merit in deliberately distancing peace from other federal structures. The government has agendas and perceptions of national interest which generally require placing peace somewhere other than first on the agenda. A Department of Peace could engage, almost independently, in peacebuilding efforts that transcend (while not contradicting) our 'national interests'.

A concern I always have stems from the well-known mantra, 'If you want peace, work for justice'. While this is a true and profound statement on the face of it, it often interferes with peacebuilding. This is because perceptions of justice differ, and many peace organizations start from a position of either blatantly or subtly 'taking sides' in a conflict. There is, perhaps, the greatest opportunity in establishing foundations of peace where conflicts do not exist, or, in conflicted areas, providing 'neutral' services of humanitarian aid, structures for mediation, etc. The United States has the resources, but not necessarily the credibility, to do this. Therefore, again, the divorcing of the department of peace from the 'official' government structure might be effective.
First of all, I would like to encourage Howard Kaspin's remarks by saying being new to awareness of this organization does not make you any less qualified to comment on the details of the plan and your general comments are most relevant to be heard.
When you said your first reaction to this at the national level is fear, whether it is Orwellian type or some other type it is still fear and that is I am sure to be common with a lot of people as I have experienced when I approach the subject to people in general. Fear seems to be the biggest obstacle in the way of what we all want: peace. It is so true what you said how our government has other agendas and perceptions of national interest that seem to be placed with higher priority and this is really the whole of the complex issue why it has been taking so many years to get more members of congress to sign on to this peace bill. Your concern that stems from the mantra spoken about "justice" that gets in the way of peacebuilding is one of the main cruxes of the problem. Yes, certainly there are many different perceptions of justice, as many as there are people probably. Certainly "taking sides" is something we all have to be careful about to not show partiality and remain neutral in our service giving, or to strive to become more impersonal in our communications with all kinds of people including our government at all levels locally and nationally as well as internationally. This is our goal certainly. It sounds like you are saying your need for peacebuilding at the cabinet level in actually establishing another separate department of peace would not be met based on that fear you feel towards the "credibility" and trust in our present government leaders.

Thank you so much for expressing yourself clearly and helping me to establish more clarity in understanding your views about this concept for a new added structure to our "official" government. I have even more comprehensive understanding of other people and would like to invite you if you are willing to join in this peacebuilding effort to build a plan. This plan is a grassroots plan "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Maybe it will be the "catch all" as it grows and develops that eventually will become a part of that "official" structure like most of us would like to see.
I guess one of the things I'm thinking is that peace building is most easily done 'pre-conflict' - teaching a culture of peace and understanding, building structures for early conflict resolution, providing a basis for justice and fulfilling people's needs. In an existing conflict area, a problem can arise in that 'neutrality' itself may be seen as a commentary on the merits of the parties to the conflict - so, there is no real neutrality. The best substitute is credibility. So there is the Red Cross model, providing for needs without regard to the issues in dispute. And there is the IPCRI model, finding points of dialogue based on common interests, with a tolerance for loud (but non-violent) disagreement. And many other models with which I'm sure you are more familiar than I.
What excites?

The fact that we looked closely enough to realize that the tweaking of strategy is necessary.
I was really struck by the visual of the flat-lined graph demonstrating the lack of progress over the years. After my initial balking of the idea that the Department of Peace would not be our primary focus, I have come to better understand the possibilities of the dual strategy. I discerned some clarity of the distinction between national peacebuilding and governmental infrastructure for peace through reading some of the Global Alliance application material. They stated," In some countries, it may take years to establish a Ministry or Department for Peace. While peace advocates work patiently on this governmental peace infrastructure, they can also advance their national peace infrastructure by setting up national peace Academies, as Costa Rica and the United States have done. This option motivates people to jump in and get to work…" Quite honestly, I had not separated the national peace from the governmental peace before.
Also the networking, web-meshing of existing organizations under one cooperative flow excites.

What concerns?

The loss of the individual state efforts, investments, progress under the Department of Peace heading. The loss of the sight of this as the end goal. The confusion of ; are we no longer the Dept of Peace campaign?, are we the DoPeace campaign? Does this place our state work now directly under the auspices of the Peace Alliance (as the Student Peace Alliance has been in the past?) and the DoPeace name/logo recognition? (By the way, I believe that the DoPeace approach , which clearly embraces the DoP in my mind, feels as if it will allow for greater approachability to and participation by others who may support the notion of Peace while not yet sure of the 'Department'. In this way the ground network can solidify. So, chalk that comment up under "what excites".)

Better?
For those of us who have been involved for a while, the foundation and the basis of the Peace Alliance's work is a given.
Personally, my initial involvement was less "legislative" and more towards our collective "consciousness evolution" toward Peace. I didn't sense this aspect of foundation in the plan. Perhaps it is viewed as a "given" but may need to be reiterated somehow for those new to the DoPeace movement to also welcome involvement on this level.

In New Hampshire?
In the past I have thought that there are more organizations 'out there' flapping in the wind in isolation than we are aware of. Each doing some part of the work (education, courts, youth violence programs, battered women shelters, peace groups, yoga studios, churches, temples etc.) I would like to thread them all together under DoPeace.

I appreciate reading the feedback of others and the groundwork that has come before.
To the Peace Alliance:


It is essential to reach the base of people that elected Obama, meaning liberal Democrats, Progressives, Independents, and moderate Republicans disillusioned with the far right. They in turn can voice their support for a Department of Peace to their Congressperson. Other State public forums can also be engaged. In Vermont we have Town Meeting where Congressman Peter Welch can be influenced with a state wide referendum. Many of the people who elected Obama are now referred to as Cultural Creatives supporting a worldview of peace, sustainability, human rights, the Kyoto Protocols, dialogue with so-called enemies, and a better life for everyone. The Peace Alliance should become acquainted with this worldview as well as the nuanced differences between many worldviews. From that study you would find that some groups can’t be reached, they are too embedded in fear and security issues and too easily manipulated by propaganda.


The State Department is in attunement with the administration and the Department of Defense in highly coordinated rhetoric in support of the US Governments wars and foreign policy. A Department of Peace would stand as a voice of humanity with integrity and independence. Peace is foundational to humanities survival during the 21st century. As the effects of Peak Oil and Climate Change become increasingly felt it will take global peace institutions, that understand social justice and fairness principles, in all governments to see humanity to safe shores and through the impending crises.


The State Department and the Department of Defense also need guidance from these peace institutions. The idea of Round Table discussions on policy, programs, and interfacing with other government departments is a good idea. However, before you engage with other government departments I would suggest some deep soul searching on how you present the DoP legislation as a structural necessity. For this I suggest a policy analysis team and think tank brainstorming group be engaged to work out some core structural principles. There are many good and insightful people out here who could make recommendations.


Now we have no governmental structures in place promoting peace as a wide scale endeavor both domestically and internationally. Even the idea of peace as a human right is foreign to most politicians; JFK said in his speech at American University, “And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights… the right of future generations to a healthy existence?” This is enough, all by itself, that structural change is needed. A Department of Peace would be the first government form to promote a culture of peace and that can consciously communicate and interact across all global worldviews, cultures, government forms and intergovernmental forms, to achieve sustainable and peaceful growth and health for all. Institutions like the State Department and the Department of Defense are immersed in arcane, well-worn and habitual diplomatic and warrior paths. They follow tried and and failed policies based on political bias, carrot and stick approaches, or just plain geo-political national interests and power struggles. They cannot be entrusted as peace building organizations.


We are embarking on one of the most challenging times humanity has experienced,. It is through strong offices of Departments of Peace that can guide us...
1. This section is appears to be building credibility for acknowledgement of a “Violence” problem.

Recommendation: I suggest referencing other works that Congress has instigated at the behest of the National Research Council under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences such as the Surgeon General’s Report on Youth Violence published in 2001 (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/toc.html) in addition to the other National Research Council violence publications seen in Appendix A in the attached document.

2. In reference to the statement in paragraph 4: “…we have not built similar agreement about changing the structure of our government to meet that need.”, I suggest the below:

Recommendation: With a national debt of $11.5 trillion and growing, I suggest utilizing the wealth of existing Violence Reduction and Peace Promotion agencies/offices already existent in our government. Please reference the below for more details on this:

The Dept of Peace is the Missing Piece in our Govt – Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix_ClAlDl_M

The Dept of Peace is the Missing Piece in our Govt - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94XejsYEuO4

Supporting documentation can be seen at www.afdop.org/involved.html

3. In reference to the “Structural Change – a) Engage Congress” item, there is a statement, “the bill itself has changed over the years and will continue to develop with more research and committee mark-ups”, I suggest the below:

Recommendation: Alter the bill so that it acknowledges how it will either 1) extract and incorporate the wealth of existing Violence Reduction and Peace Promotion agencies/offices into the new Department of Peace (see item #2 above), or 2) define very clearly how one, some, or all of the seven new Department of Peace Offices will have minimal bureaucracy which will engage in relationships with the already existent Violence Reduction and Peace Promotion agencies/offices to achieve the goals of that particular Department of Peace Office.

Doing either of the above will go a long way to addressing the valid objection that many people have to creating more bureaucracy and wasteful duplication of effort which we cannot affort in this day and age where we have limited human and financial resources given our vast financial debt obligations.

4. In reference to the “Introduce or Endorse International Peacebuilding Legislation” section, I suggest the below:

Recommendation: Add some phrasing that acknowledges the part that climate change will have on International Peacekeeping needs. See New York Times article in Appendix B in the attached document.

5. In reference to the to the “Advisory Council” section, I suggest the below:

Recommendation:

a. For International Peacebuilding experts, I suggest reaching out to the people connected to the International Peacebuilding websites identified in Appendix C in the attached document.

b. For Youth Violence Prevention experts, I suggest reaching out to the authors of the publications listed in Appendix D in the attached document.

c. For Post-Incarceration Community Reentry experts, I suggest reaching out to the authors of the publications listed in Appendix E in the attached document.

d. For Government Reform, see item #2 above.
Attachments:

RSS

DoPeace 101

DoPeace Terms & Conditions
DoPeace Overview Video

Network with Us

 Bookmark and Share



Support the Peace Alliance...


Spread The Word

Loading…

© 2013   Created by DoPeace Admin.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service