How About a Peace Race Instead of an Arms Race?

by Lawrence Wittner

In late April, the highly-respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that, in 2018, world military expenditures rose to a record $1.82 trillion.  The biggest military spender by far was the United States, which increased its military budget by nearly 5 percent to $649 billion (36 percent of the global total). But most other nations also joined the race for bigger and better ways to destroy one another through war.

This situation represents a double tragedy.  First, in a world bristling with weapons of vast destructive power, it threatens the annihilation of the human race.  Second, as vast resources are poured into war and preparations for it, a host of other problems―poverty, environmental catastrophe, access to education and healthcare, and more―fail to be adequately addressed.

But these circumstances can be changed, as shown by past efforts to challenge runaway militarism.

During the late 1950s, the spiraling nuclear arms race, poverty in economically underdeveloped nations, and underfunded public services in the United States inspired considerable thought among socially-conscious Americans.  Seymour Melman, a professor of industrial engineering at Columbia University and a peace activist, responded by writing The Peace Race, a mass market paperback published in 1961.  The book argued that military spending was undermining the U.S. economy and other key aspects of American life, and that it should be replaced by a combination of economic aid abroad and increased public spending at home.

Melman’s popular book, and particularly its rhetoric about a “peace race,” quickly came to the attention of the new U.S. President, John F. Kennedy.  On September 25, 1961, dismayed by the Soviet Union’s recent revival of nuclear weapons testing, Kennedy used the occasion of his address to the United Nations to challenge the Russians “not to an arms race, but to a peace race.”  Warning that “mankind must put an end to war―or war will put an end to mankind,” he invited nations to “join in dismantling the national capacity to wage war.”

Kennedy’s “peace race” speech praised obliquely, but powerfully, what was the most ambitious plan for disarmament of the Cold War era:  the McCloy-Zorin Accords.  This historic US-USSR agreement, presented to the UN only five days before, outlined a detailed plan for “general and complete disarmament.” It provided for the abolition of national armed forces, the elimination of weapons stockpiles, and the discontinuance of military expenditures in a sequence of stages, each verified by an international disarmament organization before the next stage began.  During this process, disarmament progress would “be accompanied by measures to strengthen institutions for maintaining peace and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means.”  In December 1961, the McCloy-Zorin Accords were adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly.

Although the accelerating nuclear arms race―symbolized by Soviet and American nuclear testing―slowed the momentum toward disarmament provided by the McCloy-Zorin Accords and Kennedy’s “peace race” address, disarmament continued as a very live issue.  The National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE), America’s largest peace organization, publicly lauded Kennedy’s “peace race” speech and called for “the launching of a Peace Race” in which the two Cold War blocs joined “to end the arms race, contain their power within constructive bounds, and encourage peaceful social change.”

For its part, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, created by the Kennedy administration to address disarmament issues, drafted an official U.S. government proposal, Blueprint for the Peace Race, which Kennedy submitted to the United Nations on April 18, 1962.  Leading off with Kennedy’s challenge “not to an arms race, but to a peace race,” the proposal called for general and complete disarmament and proposed moving in verifiable steps toward that goal.

Nothing as sweeping as this followed, at least in part because much of the subsequent public attention and government energy went into curbing the nuclear arms race.  A central concern along these lines was nuclear weapons testing, an issue dealt with in 1963 by the Partial Test Ban Treaty, signed that August by the U.S., Soviet, and British governments.  In setting the stage for this treaty, Kennedy drew upon Norman Cousins, the co-chair of SANE, to serve as his intermediary with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.  Progress in containing the nuclear arms race continued with subsequent great power agreements, particularly the signing of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1968.

As is often the case, modest reform measures undermine the drive for more thoroughgoing alternatives.  Certainly, this was true with respect to general and complete disarmament.  Peace activists, of course, continued to champion stronger measures.  Thus, Martin Luther King, Jr. used the occasion of his Nobel Peace Prize lecture in Oslo, on December 11, 1964, to declare:  “We must shift the arms race into a ‘peace race.’”  But, with important curbs on the nuclear arms race in place, much of the public and most government leaders turned to other issues.

Today, of course, we face not only an increasingly militarized world, but even a resumption of the nuclear arms race, as nuclear powers brazenly scrap nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties and threaten one another, as well as non-nuclear nations, with nuclear war.

Perhaps it’s time to revive the demand for more thoroughgoing global disarmament.  Why not wage a peace race instead of an arms race―one bringing an end to the immense dangers and vast waste of resources caused by massive preparations for war?  In the initial stage of this race, how about an immediate cut of 10 percent in every nation’s military budget, thus retaining the current military balance while freeing up $182 billion for the things that make life worth living?  As the past agreements of the U.S. and Soviet governments show us, it’s not at all hard to draw up a reasonable, acceptable plan providing for verification and enforcement.

All that’s lacking, it seems, is the will to act.

 

Dr. Lawrence Wittner (https://www.lawrenceswittner.com/) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press). This article was originally posted to History News Network

Hot Off the Presses: The International Peace and Development Training Centre Schedule of Programs for Late 2017-2018

The International Peace and Development Training Centre (IPDTC) is launching our calendar of training programs for the second half of 2017 and 2018. Trainings in 2017 include a series of Advanced Certificate Programs at the IPDTC Global Academy in Cluj-Napoca, and Executive Leadership and Intensive Core Skills Trainings in London.  

In October of this year we are hosting the two Advanced Certificate Programs:  Making Prevention, Early Warning & Peacebuilding Effective: Lessons Learned, What Works in the Field and Core Skills; and Designing Peacebuilding Programs: Improving the Quality, Impact and Effectiveness of Peacebuilding and Peace Support.

We have provided customized programs for UN Missions and Agencies all over the world, as well as for governments, negotiating parties, intergovernmental organizations, and local, national and international organizations working in peacebuilding, violence prevention, social cohesion, and post-war stabilization, recovery and peace consolidation. 

There is a reduction of -15% if three or more members of an agency / organization register. For more information see www.patrir.ro/training or email training@patrir.ro

 Claire Payne, IPDTC Coordinator

Remembering the U.S. Entry into World War I

The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary conflict.” These are the first words of British historian John Keegan in his book The First World War.” In a war that lasted over 4 years, 1914-1918, 10 million died, 20 million were injured, and 50 million died of Spanish flu, incubated and made worse by war time conditions.

Today a 100 years ago on April 6, 1917 the USA entered World War I. It is a fateful day in human and American history. It was not the war to end all wars that President Wilson promised. World War II followed WWI, then came the Cold War. The map of the Middle East was redrawn in and after WWI and is a cause of grave difficulties today in Iraq and Palestine/Israel for example.

Our World War I Muted Voices Symposium, October 19-22, 2017, will remember those who resisted, dissented, and conscientiously objected to the Great War. The Symposium is being held at the National World War I Museum and Memorial in Kansas City.

We have had over 80 paper proposals from the USA and internationally – a wonderful response. Proposers will be hearing by June whether their submission has been accepted. Also attached is an advert that you are welcome to use with your constituency.

Our keynote speakers will challenge. Our panels will inform. The gathering company of scholars, activists, and those just interested, will be rich and encouraging.

Registration is now open. Go to: theworldwar.org/mutedvoices for registration and the conference program. Early Bird registration discount ends September 8. Information on hotels and transportation is also available with registration.

We look forward to joining with you at this event.

Sincerely

Andrew Bolton

Call for Papers – Remembering Muted Voices: Conscience, Dissent, Resistance, and Civil Liberties in World War I through Today

During this year’s centennial of the U.S. entrance into World War I, the Peace History Society is cosponsoring a symposium dedicated to “the muted voices of those who resisted the Great War and the implications of these stories for today.” Entitled “Remembering Muted Voices: Conscience, Dissent, Resistance, and Civil Liberties in World War I through Today,” the symposium will be held from October 19-22 at the National World War I Museum and Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri. Those interested in attending or participating can check out the full call for papers online or check out the following flyer.

Interested participants can send a 1-page proposal focused on the theme of the conference by March 20, 2017 to John D. Roth at johndr@goshen.edu. For more information, contact Andrew Bolton at abolton@cofchrist.org.

The Future of Peace under Trump

Doug Rossinow

No one knows what the foreign policy of President Donald J. Trump holds in store for the world. Who could have predicted the course of US foreign policy under Barack Obama or George W. Bush? Obama, it is true, went far toward fulfilling his pledge to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq, and he has scaled down the US war in Afghanistan as well (something he did not promise to do in 2008). He has failed, however, to consistently press for a closure of the extra-constitutional Guantánamo Bay detention facility for accused terrorists. The persistence of the US military presence in Iraq is largely due to the rise of Daesh, which Obama did not anticipate and which, basically, is traceable to Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. That disaster, of course, was predicted by exactly no one in 2000, and it was only made possible by the shocking 9/11 attacks on America.

In light of this recent history, we can only expect the unexpected from foreign affairs during the coming four years.

From a peace perspective, the campaign of 2016 was rather dismal. The Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton, was so hawkish — enamored of Henry Kissinger and proud of pressing President Obama toward armed intervention in Libya — that she allowed a right-wing nationalist, in the person of Trump, to campaign as the peace candidate. Trump cogently criticized the policy of armed overthrow of Middle Eastern dictatorships. Trump pledged to maintain Obama’s resistance to deeper US military intervention in the Syrian civil war. Trump astounded everyone by declaring, before the South Carolina Republican primary no less, that Bush had deceived the country by waging war against Iraq based on phony claims about weapons of mass destruction. He declared that the US would be better off with Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi still in power. The GOP voters of the Palmetto State rewarded Trump’s eerie echo of standard peace movement talking points with victory. Once he secured the Republican nomination, Trump had the antiwar lane all to himself. The corrosive effects of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on the authority of America’s customary political elites have been more profound and widespread than many analysts understand. The collapse of confidence in US leadership has opened a path to power for a business tycoon who styles himself an outsider. Activists will mobilize to protest abuses of Americans’ rights and of the planet in the coming years. Whether they will need to protest new US wars is something we cannot know. If Trump turns his back on his antiwar campaign, he will spurn not only peace activists, but many who supported him as well. In that event, the peace movement will do well to reach out to disaffected Trump voters who inhabit the America where the wars of our century have taken a terrible toll.

Doug Rossinow is a former president of the Peace History Society and author of The Reagan Era: A History of the 1980s. He currently writes from Oslo, Norway

Peace in the Trump Era

With Donald Trump poised to assume the presidency of the United States, the editors of Peace & Change have decided to inaugurate a series dedicated to examining the implications of a Trump presidency. To aid us in this task, we have asked influential scholars to weigh in with their reactions, reflections, and analysis of the impending Trump era. These experts, from their unique scholarly and personal perspectives, will help to illuminate the multiple ways in which a Trump presidency might influence the prospects for peace. This series of guest posts will also raise new questions, point to emerging areas of inquiry, and suggest possibilities for scholars and activists to influence the discourse in the coming years. Ultimately, it is important that we dialogue about the future of peace, peace scholarship, activism, and the uncertainties of a Trump presidency.

We will kick off the series tomorrow morning with a post from Doug Rossinow, former president of the Peace History Society and author of The Reagan Era: A History of the 1980s.

Call for Papers – “Peace Initiatives and the Urban Space”

By Susanne Schregel, University of Cologne

There are many answers to why studying the history of peace and conflict resolution is so rewarding, and one of them is the diversity of actions and strategies that have been employed to foster peace, disarmament and reconciliation. In my scholarly work, I have been particularly interested in the history of micro-political strategies and grassroots actions, above all the spatial strategies that were used to mobilise for peace and achieve conflict resolution. So I am enthusiastic that the upcoming Annual Conference of the German Society for Historical Research on Peace and Conflict will be devoted to “Peace Initiatives and the Urban Space in the long 20th century.” The event, which will take place in Berlin in September 2017, will explore the past and present of initiatives campaigning for nonviolence, disarmament, and peace from an urban point of view.

With this conference, the Society for Historical Peace and Conflict Research aims to strengthen the argument that cities and towns operate as more than just places where activities for peace and disarmament can take place. Concrete urban settings, rather, serve as objects of reflection and become sources for negotiations concerning peace, reconciliation, and nonviolence in people’s everyday lives.

The conference will investigate the dynamic between urban space and initiatives for peace and disarmament that has emerged throughout the long 20th century and continues into the present. It will explore how towns and cities have assumed the role of a counterforce against tendencies towards militarisation, destruction, and violence, thereby aiming to widen and enlarge our perspective on creating peace in relation to urban life and urban space.

We invite contributions from scholars across a broad range of disciplines, including history, sociology, political science, peace and conflict studies, geography, urban studies, architecture, religious studies, anthropology, and media studies.

Topics for papers include, but are not limited to:

Grassroots Urban Peace Activism and Its Local/Global Interconnections. As a first analytical focus, we invite contributions discussing the rich history of grassroots urban peace initiatives and peace activism in towns and cities. When, where, and how did urban grassroots peace initiatives emerge and evolve, and in which spatial interrelations and broader organisational frameworks did these activities develop? In which ways were such activities backed by cities’ ‘peace’ traditions, and how did these traditions contribute to interpretations of both local and national history?

Peace and Disarmament in Official City Policies. As a second analytical focus, we encourage contributions exploring how local municipal officials and elected bodies have been involved in urban actions for peace – for instance via town twinning and city networks, through adopting peace resolutions, or in local nuclear-free zone initiatives. Where, when, and why did urban representatives and urban elected bodies engage in ‘local foreign policy’ initiatives? Which roles did prominent local elected officials assume in such endeavours, for instance in groups as ‘Mayors for Peace’? How was promoting peace and disarmament localized via initiatives such as the establishment of peace awards?

Peace and the Symbolism of Urban Geographies. As a further strand of discussion, we suggest investigating interconnections between the design of concrete urban spaces, and discussions about peace, nonviolence, antimilitarism, and disarmament. How did debates about peace, reconciliation, and nonviolence engage with the symbolism of urban geographies – for instance in discussions about street naming or monument erection and in practices such as peace garden design or tree planting ceremonies? How did material interventions into the urban space negotiate local cultures of remembrance, and how did they draw on and engage relics and memories of urban violence and wartime destructions? How did and how does architecture reflect themes of peace and reconciliation in concrete urban settings – be it with famous buildings such as the Peace Palace in The Hague or more mundane settings that serve everyday purposes?

Cultures, Imagination, and Aesthetics of Peace. How did initiatives try to foster a local culture for peace, for instance via the organisation of cultural events or the establishment of local peace museums? How do imaginations and aesthetics of peace look when viewed through the lens of urban studies? Which kinds of media were used in urban initiatives for peace and disarmament, and how did specific media approaches shape the relation between peace and the city? How do predominantly visual media such as photography and film reflect on the interconnections between peace and the city? How are relations among cities, peace, and conflict discussed in art, literature, poetry, and music?

‘Peace Cities.’ Finally, we invite presenters to offer general and theoretical reflections on notions and concepts of the relation between towns and cities, peace and conflict. Is there such a thing as ‘peace cities’ or ‘cities of peace’, and if so, in what sense? How can we relate this mode of characterising cities and towns to modes of describing the urban that focus on war and conflict (for instance the ‘postmortem city’, the ‘post-catastrophic city’, or the ‘Cold War city’)?

These questions are meant to be interpreted broadly, and applicants are encouraged to submit brief proposals for papers addressing the conference’s title themes. If you are interested in participating, please send an abstract of 200–300 words and a short biographical note to akhf@mail.de by January 15, 2017.

There is no conference fee, and we intend to cover all accommodation costs and most meals, pending the availability of funds. We also offer travel grants to participating scholars, particularly to those without institutional resources to cover travel expenses.

Susanne Schregel is the chairperson of the German Society for Historical Research on Peace and Conflict. She is fascinated by the diversity of grassroots mobilisation for peace and disarmament and particularly interested in aspects of place, space and scale in contemporary history. Her newest articles include ‘Nuclear War and the City. Perspectives on Municipal Interventions in Defence (Great Britain, New Zealand, West Germany, USA, 1980–1985),’ in: Urban History 42 (2015) n. 4, p. 564–583; ‘Global Micropolitics. Toward a Transnational History of Nuclear Free Zones,’ in: Eckart Conze/Martin Klimke/Jeremy Varon (eds.), Nuclear Threats, Nuclear Fear and the Cold War of the 1980s (Cambridge University Press, 2016), p. 206–226. Contact at s.schregel@uni-koeln.de; http://www.akhf.de

Photo: Daniel Gerster, “Berlin Alexanderplatz”

Where is Standing Rock?

By Shelley E. Rose

It’s not where you think it is.

Like many, I have been following the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and the establishment of the Sacred Stone Camp in April 2016. (see this helpful timeline from Mother Jones) When I signed into Facebook this morning, my feed was flooded with friends and colleagues checking in at Standing Rock, ND.

My first thought: I’ve definitely missed something big.

It soon became clear that my contacts had not all traveled to North Dakota overnight. So what changed in the movement? The exact origins of this virtual campaign remain unclear, but Kim LaCapria of Snopes.com reports that it did not originate with the Sacred Stone Camp. Regardless of the campaign’s origins, No-DAPL supporters checking-in on Facebook occupy the growing virtual space of Standing Rock: harnessing the power of social media and bringing the physical confrontation to the digital realm. Here I again ask the question: Where is Standing Rock?

The Standing Rock movement is intricately tied to both the physical location of the Sacred Stone Camp and virtual locations for protest on social media, including the Standing Rock Facebook page and #NoDAPL tag. As a historian interested in space as a lens into protest movement histories (ok, borderline obsessed), this is an excellent example of how protests and the spaces they occupy are intimately linked, and most often, deliberately chosen. While a single blog post cannot provide a thorough analysis of protest spaces, here I offer three reasons why the Standing Rock locations matter.

1. Location-based Protest and Communities of Practice

Shared physical spaces bring individuals together around a common issue and establish common narratives in ways that cannot be discounted in the study of protest movements. Spatial proximity fosters a heightened sense of community, profoundly impacting individual activists long after they leave the protest site. Huffington Post’s Katie Scarlett Brandt describes this feeling well in her recent article “I am a White Person Who Went to Standing Rock. This is What I Learned.” Brandt’s thick description of sleeping outside at the camp, waking up to the mundane sounds of her fellow activists starting their day, and being embedded in the routine of the movement all supports the role of shared space in the creation of activist communities of practice. As a scholar, I rely on Sally McConnell-Ginet and Penelope Eckert’s definition of communities of practice as “an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in an endeavor. Ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values and power relations- in short, practices- emerge in the course of this mutual endeavor.” [1] What is most important about communities of practice, is that their boundaries remain undefined, limited only by the scope of interaction and the spaces occupied by individual members. Transferred as a lens into the No DAPL protests, the physical space of the Sacred Stone Camp brings individuals together around a common issue and establishes common narratives for protest. This type of space-based solidarity can also be seen in the #NoTAV movement as documented by political scientists Donatella della Porta, Maria Fabbri and Gianni Piazza.[2]

2. Isn’t this just hashtag activism?

Not exactly. Standing Rock is a critical moment for reexamining the role of social media in protest movements. As in the Occupy movement and the Arab Spring protests, social media outlets provide a key means of communication for activists to find the physical locations of the movement. In fact, social media posts were among the first catalysts for such a diverse group of Native Americans and their supporters to gather in North Dakota. (See this September 2016 article by Jack Healy). Yet even earlier today I read social media posts questioning the real-world impact of checking-in at Standing Rock. The general conclusion seems to be that it helps just to “do something” to raise awareness.

These place-based solidarity posts on Facebook beginning on October 30 are what make the Standing Rock case different, and marks a new direction in the relationship between social media and protest events. Each “check- in” at Standing Rock represents an exercise of power from a growing activist community of practice in the social media world. This is not a standalone hashtag, social media activists checked-in with the belief that they could disrupt the perceived “geo-targeting” power of law enforcement and security forces over No-DAPL activists. In short, virtual interventions might physically protect activists. Those occupying “virtual” Standing Rock, regardless of the actual impact on law enforcement, are expanding the community of practice, drawn to a sense of solidarity fostered by Standing Rock as a physical protest space, and compelling networks of virtual activists to create a digital extension of that location.

3. Is “virtual” Standing Rock still Standing Rock?

Standing Rock is not just a space for protest, it is a place. Geographers understand place as space inscribed with meaning. Standing Rock has a long place history, grounded in the struggles between the Native Americans and the US government. As of 2016, it also has a place history as a site of protest against the DAPL. In the last 24 hours, I argue, “virtual” Standing Rock has also become a place. It is intimately tied to the physical space in North Dakota, and yet stands on its own as a virtual space, occupied for a specific purpose by a diverse group of people coming together around a common cause. It is not sponsored by any established organization, but formed organically and has had 198,267 visits by the time of this writing. Historian David Glassberg argues that spaces anchor individuals in their “sense of history” and a common past. [3] In this case, the occupation of both physical and virtual Standing Rock has engaged individuals in an activist community of practice and the creation of place through protest.

 
Shelley E. Rose (@shelleyerose) is Assistant Professor of History and Director of Social Studies at Cleveland State University. She is currently working on her book, Gender and the Politics of Peace: Cooperative Activism and Transnational Networks on the German Left, 1921-1983, and is a director of the Protest Spaces digital humanities project.

 
References:
1. Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet, “Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice” Annual Review of Anthropology 21 (1992): 464.
2. Donatella della Porta, Maria Fabbri and Gianni Piazza, “Putting Protest in Place: Contested and Liberated Spaces in Three Campaigns,” in Nicholls, et al., Spaces of Contention: Spatialities and Social Movements (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2013).
3. David Glassberg, Sense of History: The Place of the Past in American Life (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001), 6.

Peace History and U.S. Foreign Policy

Image courtesy of Roger Peace

Is it possible to cultivate a peace perspective while studying American wars? I think it is, if value-based questions are asked and a corresponding framework for analysis is offered.

The peacehistory-usfp.org website, which I am developing with the support of the Peace History Society and Historians Against the War, asks whether each foreign war fought by the United States was just and necessary. This is the entry point for critically evaluating U.S. wars and foreign policies.

The standards for evaluating wars are situated outside of Washington but within the real world. They are rooted in the developing moral architecture of international norms, including prohibitions against national aggression written into the Charter of the United Nations (1945), human rights guidelines as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and subsequent human rights treaties, and humanitarian laws governing the conduct of war as set forth in the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Having taught many U.S. history survey courses at the community college level, including 35 “U.S. in the World” courses, I have struggled to find appropriate resources that offer alternative perspectives to the dominant nationalistic viewpoints that infuse undergraduate textbooks and popular websites. Wars are typically evaluated on the basis of whether American power and interests were advanced, with little concern for “just war” principles or the harm done to others.

The goal of the website is to fully examine every U.S. war and major foreign policy orientation over the course of 240 years. Thus far, four of the eighteen planned entries have been completed: War of 1812, U.S.-Mexican War, War of 1898 and U.S.-Filipino War, and Korean War. Each entry comprises a short book of 28,000-32,000 words (roughly 85-95 pages), supplemented with images.

I invite educators to utilize the website by assigning sections for student reading. Feedback is welcome. I also invite scholars to participate in developing new entries, whether by suggesting resources, creating outlines, writing sections, or reading drafts.
The website does not purport to reveal an “untold story,” but rather to parlay critical perspectives commonly found at higher levels of academia into accessible narratives for non-history majors and the general public (history majors will benefit as well). In the War of 1812 entry, for example, I relied on the authoritative accounts of historians Donald R. Hickey, Carl Benn, and Alan Taylor, experts on the subject, among others. The perspective put forth is “new” only in the sense that U.S. textbooks and popular history have privileged the official (Madison) administration viewpoint, minimizing or excluding British, Canadian, and Native American views, and treating dissenting Federalists and peace advocates as losers. It will nonetheless appear new to many.

Peace scholars have added much to our understanding of the role of peace movements and antiwar voices in policy debates and protests. The intent of the website is not to fashion the story around these movements and individuals, but to give them more prominence and highlight their critiques. Readers and students should become thoroughly familiar with the idea that the prospect of war has typically engendered intense debate and opposition, that U.S. leaders have often resorted to underhanded methods to push the nation into war, and that militant patriotism has been used to intimidate and silence antiwar voices.

Apart from historical entries, there are two other parts of the website that have yet to be developed. One is a subsection in “Resources” to be titled “For Educators,” which might include lesson plans and curricula/syllabi for courses. Another is the “Connections” section, which I envision as highlighting recent newspaper and website articles connecting past and present.

To take one example, the New York Times (9/7/16), in covering President Obama’s visit to Laos, reported that “the United States had dropped more than two million tons of bombs on this country during the height of the Vietnam War, more than it dropped on Germany and Japan during World War II.” Obama offered $30 million to help clean up the still-unexploded bombs, which “lie buried under fields and forests, killing and maiming thousands of children, farmers, and others who stumble on them.” The war has not ended for Laotians.

In the end, I hope that the website leads students and citizens to intelligently question both current and past U.S. foreign policies, and to consider alternative international arrangements that build on international cooperation, mutual security, and common problem-solving. More immediately, I hope it serves as an outreach vehicle for the Peace History Society and Historians Against the War.

 


Roger Peace earned his doctorate in American Foreign Relations from Florida State University and taught U.S. and world history courses for 17 years. Prior to teaching, he worked as a local peace organizer and foundation director for nearly two decades. He is the author of A Call to Conscience: The Anti-Contra War Campaign (University of Massachusetts Press, 2012). Contact him at rcpeace3@embarqmail.com.

Hear Peace Historian Geoff Smith’s CBC Interview on the 2016 US Presidential Race

shutterstock_346820267.jpg
Image Courtesy of Shutterstock

This week we begin a new feature in collaboration with the Peace History Society newsletter, currently under the editorship of Robert Shaffer of Shippensburg University. In the future, the Peace and Change Blog will periodically republish selected materials from the newsletter for our readership. Our goal is to introduce you to one of the key organizations behind Peace & Change and provide you with pieces about peace studies, current events, and other related topics of interest.

We begin our new series with an interview of PHS member – and recent winner of the Lifetime Achievement Award – Geoff Smith of Queen’s University about the recent U.S. presidential election, which aired on the Canadian Broadcasting Company. Commenting on the state of the Republican Party, Smith argues “that the Republican Party is not there anymore as a political vehicle.” Smith goes on to highlight Trump’s populist appeal, discussing how the Republican candidate has reached “out to groups in various areas of economic life that have been depressed, and that have been put down, people who feel aggrieved.”

Smith also discussed the issue of racism in the Republican Party, highlighting how Trump “stands for white America.” According to Smith, the key to a Democratic victory in November is to challenge Trump’s racist rhetoric and make it clear to the U.S. public that Trump is “not presidential.”

For those interested hearing more of the Smith’s thoughts on the current U.S. presidential election, follow this link for the full interview.