Investments

Dialectic: Peace Prize Forum workshop provides opportunity for dialogue

Date 3/8/2001 12:00 AM | Topic: Opinion

As student organizer for the Peace Prize Forum I am invested in the integrity of the event I helped shape. Thus, I feel compelled to respond to David Weiss' thoughtful comments on Colonel Weidner's participation as a seminar leader.

I in no way support the U.S. foreign policy strategy that keeps the School of the Americas (now Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) functioning. I have followed the debate for several years and enthusiastically support closing it and taking responsibility for atrocities linked to SOA.

Thus I applaud the nonviolent protesters who echo my outrage over SOA and raise voices of solidarity for those who suffered unspeakable horror at the hands of SOA graduates.

However, I question the attitude that challenges the Forum planning committee's commitment to keeping the Forum safe for dialogue. I feel it misrepresents the purpose of the Forum and is -- however unintentional -- unfair to those who work to guarantee open conversation.

The protesters are more than justified in being here; in fact I am inclined to join them. Alternately, I might have a genuine chance to raise challenging questions by actually attending Weidner's seminar. Regardless, the controversy over the SOA seminars will provide a valuable experience for those who protest, attend one or both of the SOA seminars, or simply are aware and engage in conversation surrounding this issue. None of this would happen were it not for Weidner agreeing to enter this conversation. For that we should be at least partially grateful.

However, it is not enough to dismiss this as a "learning experience." That would reduce very real suffering to a textbook exercise in ethics. That is clearly inappropriate -- so there must be greater justification for allowing Weidner to present his case.

One of the traditional functions of the Forum is to dialogue about national security issues. SOA (or WHISC) is one of many U.S. "defense projects" that I find abhorrent. However, it is a part of our defense strategy. Like it or not, our nation (our tax dollars) supports this endeavor. We must have open dialogue on this and all national security issues if we are to make clear what our budget priorities should be. But we cannot do this by writing off the representatives of our foreign policy as murderers who are unworthy of entering into conversation with.

Were Col. Weidner invited to speak from the podium during plenary sessions, I would feel much differently. The podium is the physical and symbolic presence of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is important to me that what is spoken from that podium present a diverse but decidedly constructive argument for the things that make for peace. Thus, I am thrilled that J. Brian Atwood is speaking as opposed to Madeleine Albright or Colin Powell, since Atwood represents (as well as questions) our country's commitment to development, whereas the Secretaries of State represent a foreign policy that I believe is fundamentally flawed.

But seminars are a place to express and talk about more diverse opinions on the nuances of peacemaking. Just as newspapers provide space for dialogue without screening for those pieces the editorial staff agrees with, the committee made sure a diverse range of views are present, even when some seminars may express views that we all do not hold.

I agree that we owe the victims the chance to enter the dialogue. The very tragedy is that they are not readily available. For that reason I am thankful for the protesters and the seminar presenting the "other side" for seeking to raise important voices of solidarity and outrage. However, I contend that this and other shameful "defense strategies" will never be uncovered, challenged, eliminated, apologized and compensated for if we simply polarize the issue and end dialogue.

--

Jay McDivitt
Chips Guest Columnist

[ Comment, Edit or Article Submission ]