Written during the Gulf
War--nothing came of it.
How
about a Peace Leadership School?
I worked at the Stanley Foundation in 1991; I addressed this think piece
to Noa Davenport who was education director at the now defunct
Iowa Peace Institute.
DATE: March 7, 1991
TO: Noa Davenport
FROM: Dan Clark
RE: How about a "Peace Leadership School"?
After starting to condense this, I have instead updated and
expanded it slightly. I hope you will share the entire piece
with members of the Justice & Peace Studies Association.
Thanks.
AN IOWA RESPONSE TO WAR
Proposal: Iowa Peace Leadership School
The Persian Gulf War and its aftermath present a "teachable
moment" for peace educators. Iowans should take advantage
of the current interest, however fleeting it may be, to originate
an ongoing program of peacemaker education and training for our
citizens--a program which in time could become, without apology,
a direct alternative to military training. A start could be made
soon through the Iowa Peace Institute and its affiliates in the
Iowa Justice and Peace Studies Association. The project might
be called the "Iowa Peace Leadership School" (IPLS).
The Problem: Peace People in Wartime
This war caused deep anguish for advocates of nonviolent conflict
resolution. It represented not only a failure of diplomacy, but
also a repudiation of the high hopes and hard work of all who
had celebrated the end of the Cold War--who saw within reach
an opportunity for implementing the new techniques and institutions
of "a world beyond war." The manipulation of United
Nations sanctions to justify "Operation Desert Storm"
was particularly disheartening to all who look to the UN for
leadership in the post-Cold War era.
Whatever resistance is mounted against such a seemingly popular
war is virtually futile in the short term. Peace advocates--even
those who reluctantly supported the war as a necessary evil--are
now looking for ways to create a "new order" that will
not rely upon investments in weapons and threats or use of military
force. In the face of this war's popularity, the prospects for
alternative priorities and approaches do not look promising.
What can peace advocates do to change the climate, eventually
if not immediately?
One answer is to create an alternative reality close to home.
Amid calls to "support the troops," many peace advocates
acted compassionately toward individual soldiers and their families,
while at the same time asserting the right and responsibility
to present constructive alternatives to the resort to war. This
work may be of long-term character, but it can be pursued even
now (maybe especially now).
An Iowa Answer
In Iowa, where peace work enjoys a strong heritage, peace
proponents should institute a Peace Leadership School for the
purposes of
- bringing together educators and mentors who can offer elements
of peace curriculum, both theory and practice;
- identifying students (of all ages and walks of life) who
want to study and practice peacemaking;
- providing safe space for mutual support and exploration of
common initiatives among people who seek constructive ways to
oppose war and create peace.
In the short term, the Peace Leadership School would necessarily
start small, experimentally, and poorly funded. In time, and
with increasing success, it could become an essential element
in Iowa's highly-reputed peace establishment, perhaps as a cooperative
effort among several institutions and organizations. Maybe it
could even enjoy tax support someday--just like the military.
Say It Aloud
Reference to the military would be important, perhaps essential,
to the strength and integrity of the undertaking. From the outset,
the Peace Leadership School should be an intentional alternative
to military-type training. This alternative character, however,
should not be posed in a reactionary, confrontational, or oppositional
mode. That is, the means should should be consistent with the
desired ends. Thus, the Peace Leadership School should humbly
seek answers to universal questions: What can societies do instead
of going to war? How can nonviolent conflict-resolution methods
gain adoption? Or, as Gene Sharp puts it, how can we "transarm"
to "nonviolent struggle" and "nonviolent defense"?
How can the acceptability of war be reduced and its practice
curtailed? These are questions that soldiers and veterans and
military theoreticians all profess to care about. Supporters
of war often claim to be realists who are just doing what must
be done until the pacifists can figure out what to do instead.
Those who would teach peace should acknowledge this challenge
and find in it a compelling mandate.
"Support the Troops"
The Persian Gulf War cast a new spotlight on the role of the
citizen-warriors who were mobilized and integrated into warfare
as never before. This war engaged the families, schools, and
workplaces from which the part-time "volunteer" soldiers
were called. The deployment of local reserve units brought home
to most communities a sense of direct participation that has
been far more intense than would be felt in a conflict involving
only professional soldiers. Unlike a conscription situation that
stirs popular resentment, resistance to the deployment of reservists
is diminished by the common knowledge that these soldiers volunteered--"They
knew what they signed up for." Whatever we may have believed,
as individual citizens, about the necessity or conduct of the
war, all of us have felt tremendous pressure to support these
fellow citizens who have been called to "service."
Conventional wisdom says that military force is used as a
last resort, and President Bush says he went "the extra
mile for peace" before attacking Iraq. Before the war votes
in Congress, the choice was between "giving more time for
the sanctions to work" and "letting our troops do their
job." Opponents of the war found themselves pressed to distinguish
between "the troops" (whom they were careful to "support")
and the policy--a very narrow, tricky line to walk.
We do not have "peace troops" to support. What we do
have on the "peace" side are protesters against war.
And, however careful the protesters are to insist that they too
"support" the troops, their credibility may be in doubt.
How can they support the troops if they don't support the work
the troops do (which is war)?
As things stand today, our communities have little chance
to identify any local stake in "diplomacy" in the ways
they are able to identify, naturally enough, with their local
soldiers. If ordinary citizens think about diplomacy at all,
they are likely to view it as remote, abstract, vague, and elitist.
Local folks rarely know any of the players firsthand. If anything,
diplomats may be viewed negatively as unelected politicians who
get our country into messes that have to be paid for with our
tax dollars and our soldiers' lives.
"Who among us knows any nonviolent conflict-resolvers
or nonviolent-struggle combatants?" our neighbors might
say. "Whoever they may be, they certainly are not people
we know as friends and family members who have sacrificed the
safety and comforts of home for the cause of freedom. And besides,
if the soldiers have been called in, it's because the diplomats
did everything they could already. So, don't be trying to hold
back the military. Get the talkers out of the way, and let the
soldiers do their job."
Risk a Comparison: Alternatives to Armories
Local involvement in the military effort is highly visible,
even in small towns, even in peacetime. Even in Iowa, which ranks
very low among the states receiving "defense" dollars,
National Guard armories and reserve facilities dot the landscape,
and local economies are grateful for infusions of payroll. Reservists
and Guard members train for war outside of their regular work
or school hours (earning the label "weekend warriors"),
and they undergo periodic intensive training, usually at a "summer
camp." During natural disasters and civil emergencies, units
are mobilized and members serve at state expense. Their contributions
are local, concrete, and understandable.
All over Iowa there are many opportunities for citizens to
experience this kind of training and service. Because of its
high visibility, easy entry, and a tradition of respectability--and
because many incentives and inducements are offered to potential
recruits--training for warfare is well established and well accepted
in our state.
Training for peacemaking, in contrast, enjoys relatively very
little public understanding and support. What few opportunities
exist for peace training must be sought out and paid for by the
participants. Rarely does this activity benefit from public or
private subsidy. And, however acceptably it may be viewed, peace
training is considered a volunteer pastime. And what's the point,
really? Where's the demand for this service?
While grassroots military training is commonly viewed as a
laudable form of service to society, it is also widely viewed
as an acceptable means of income supplement and education opportunity
for the poor and disadvantaged. For any who would make a comparison,
the message is clear: "You get paid to train for
war (and there are other benefits), but you have to pay
if you want to study peace." On an evaluation form from
our recent Justice & Peace Studies conference--which got
very high ratings from participants--someone wrote: "Make
the conference less expensive for students (say $10) $25 is too
much!"
But what if we did have peace troops--unarmed conflict-interveners,
dispute-resolution specialists, disaster-responders, community-developers,
and justice-builders? What if they got paid for their service,
both at home and across the globe? What if they earned education
benefits or advanced career opportunities? What if peace preparations
generated local income? What if communities had local training
facilities? Would we be so quick to support war if our neighbors
and relatives were serving in a peace force that would have failed
if war began?
If any place has the resources and inclination to start finding
out, it should be Iowa--The Peace State.
Iowa Peace Institute--The Natural Initiator
Part of the dream of the founders of the Iowa Peace Institute
was for a training facility and curriculum for peacemakers, an
intentional alternative to the kinds of training associated with
military approaches to conflict. The Iowa institute originated
as an effort to attract to this state the new United States Institute
of Peace. The federal institute was created in 1984 in response
to a nationwide campaign for a National Peace Academy which would
be a direct counterpart to the military service academies. When
it became clear that USIP would not relocate outside of Washington,
DC, the Iowans turned their attention to creating the Iowa Peace
Institute.
To some degree the dream has been realized already through
outreach and training events in many of the subject areas that
might be considered alternatives to military training. But the
counter-military significance of IPI work has been soft-pedalled--understandably.
There is no reason to stir up unnecessary controversy or offend
funders (notably some large corporations and the Iowa legislature),
but neither should IPI deny itself the asset of a program that
undertakes a clear (but nonconfrontive) alternative to the military.
Many Iowans would support such a program. In fact, some peace
activists who have been skeptical about IPI until now could respond
eagerly to this initiative--without constituting a "kiss
of death" to the support for other programs.
How It Could Begin
The Peace Leadership School could begin on a self-supporting
or low-subsidy basis and expand as justified by success and demand.
Perhaps the IPLS could start with two or three weekend sessions
(maybe monthly) on a central Iowa campus (or several campuses),
The teachers would come from around the state, and so would the
students. The curriculum could be designed by the leadership
of the Iowa Justice and Peace Studies Association with assistance
from staff at Iowa Peace Institute and the Stanley Foundation.
The start could be very small and experimental.
The first step would be to poll the faculty on Iowa campuses
to discover what existing "peace curriculum" elements
might be offered. These offerings would be discussed by a design
group (representing sponsors) which would package them and make
arrangements for teachers and facilities.
Participating organizations would then publicize the IPLS,
and students would register through IPI. If course credit is
possible (or desired), the credit-granting institutions would
administer it according to their own requirements.
These weekend classes or training experiences could be called
"weekend peacemaker" training, just as the six-year-old,
week-long "Neighbors in a Global Village" experience
is already referred to as "peace camp." The military
comparisons should be made in a friendly way that conveys a bold
message without threatening. That in itself would be an important
exercise in peacemaking. The Iowa Peace Leadership School could
be one of the best outcomes of the current war.
Reactions? Maybe this will stimulate dialogue and constructive
variations. Thanks for your attention.
_____________________
Daniel G. Clark lives in Muscatine
and runs Clark & Associates consulting and project management
in communications, web design, and international exchanges (http://friendlywork.com).
