From Johan Galtung, 50 Years: 100 Peace and Conflict Perspectives.
 
Diagnosis: The proposal presented June 1964 (20 forslag, pp. 46-47) sees the pressure on the administration in the direction of peace as has increased enormously after the Second World War, but that is not reflected in additional appropriations for the foreign office as opposed to the ministries dealing with domestic affairs. Nor is the work for peace coordinated. There is no setting where all these initiatives can meet each other for mutual enrichment.

There is a need for some place in the central administration where the peace movement can engage the administration and function positively, not only criticizing. Today so much goodwill and initiative are wasted, and the peace movement easily becomes irresponsible. Major economic organizations interact with major ministries but the peace movement and the foreign office do not interact in a formalized way. An organizational development has been called for--as done by judge Bonnevie (a Department of peace, a consultative cabinet member), professors Aubert and Bratholm, and in the UN General Assembly as a resolution proposal by the ambassador from Honduras, Francisco Milla Bermudez, December 1961.
Prognosis: If peace is fragmented between many ministries there will not be the coordinated push supported by heavy arguments, financial support and political backing needed for such complicated issues. On the other hand, there is also the risk that coordination could take the form of a minor ministry or directorate where lack of prestige, including that of the politician in charge, would give a negative signal. That may, however, be a process this initiative will have to go through. Hence, maybe better a directorate to start with than nothing at all.

Therapy: There has to be a coordinating office for peace in the central administration of any country, ideally as a ministry, but also as a directorate. The newcomer will probably be on a collision course with old-timers, the ministries of foreign and military affairs, complaining that it may shed doubt on the country's stance in delicate negotiations, and its security posture. One way of handling that might be to place it inside the Prime Minister's Office, above that strife. This may presuppose a peace dedicated PM (a valid assumption when the PM had facilitated both the Peace Corps and the Council for Peace and Conflict Research).

Concretely, the proposal had three components:
  • A Peace Directorate under the Prime Minister's office to coordinate peace initiatives abroad. The details can be carried out by the Directorate and relevant ministries in cooperation;
  • The head of the Directorate is a consultative minister entitled to participate in cabinet meetings;
  • A State Peace Council with representatives from peace organizations and others to channel peace initiatives and ideas to the authorities, in the first run to the Peace Directorate, with some kind of consultative status. The Youth Council and the Sports Council might serve as models.

A Ministry of peace would signal that peace is taken seriously. Peace would have a governmental, even cabinet spokesperson at intergovernmental meetings, a person to channel ideas from the peace movements and others, and above all inside the government at cabinet meetings. Coordination will no doubt engender new tensions and new forces, not all equally peaceful.

The tasks will shape the Ministry subdivisions, like a research section also submitting proposals to the Parliament, disarmament section, offices for peace relevant aspects of development aid and the peace corps in particular, international law, international peacekeeping forces, and nonviolent occupation defense. (June 1964)

From Johan Galtung, 50 Years: 100 Peace and Conflict Perspectives. TRANSCEND University Press (www.transcend.org/tup ), 2008.