|
Peace Reigns on College Campus
On two sunny days in April, students from Washington College, Howard University, The Catholic University of America and the University of Baltimore came together in Miller Library for an experiment in negotiation.
The Washington College team intended to change history.
What happened was a lesson in diplomacy.
When the young, serious delegates chose their places at the table in the center of the Sophie Kerr Room, they complained of the chill. Icy air from an overactive cooling system, however, was only partly responsible. The real chill came because no one at the table trusted anyone else.
How could they? The students were engaged in a simulation of the 1972–73 Paris Peace talks to end the war in Vietnam. They represented North Vietnam, South Vietnam, the Soviet Union and the United States. Prior negotiations had broken down. The road to peace was cratered by bombs and littered with broken promises. No one seemed eager to begin.
Seth Gabriel, Washington College junior acting as the U.S. spokesman, handed out the U.S. negotiating points. No one responded. The Soviets saw an opportunity to fill the vacuum.
The Soviet team comprised Don Jones, Annie Vera and Michelle Liebelt, graduate students from the negotiation and conflict management program at the University of Baltimore. Jones and Vera seated behind her, Liebelt began. "We believe we can gain the respect of all parties by extending our good offices to facilitate dialogue amongst the parties." She listed gains the Soviets hoped for--improved relations with the United States and increased international stature through a neutral stance at the talks. "North Vietnam is less important to us now than the United States is in terms of our foreign policy aims," she revealed. She emphasized, however, her country's desire to further communism via "Third Party Diplomacy."
Jannie Botes, faculty adviser to the Soviet team, said, "We were sheep in wolves' clothing to a degree, but we thought we might just pull it off to be accepted as 'neutrals.' When the other delegations hesitated in the beginning.....
LaShunda Richmond, a senior psychology major at Howard University representing South Vietnam, took the floor. She recounted the history of the war from the South Vietnamese perspective, beginning with the official 1954 division of the country. Referring to "our good friend, President Johnson," she strongly questioned the recent actions of the United States. "Our American friends have, virtually without consultation with us, the people with most stake in this situation, engaged in secret negotiations with the murderous Democratic Republic of Vietnam in pursuit of a policy they call 'peace with honor.'" Richmond pleaded, "We beg the United States to reject any agreement that doesn't provide for the security of the Republic of Vietnam, its people and its democratic values." Her fellow negotiators, Nytaino Romulus and Olugboyega Olusoga, nodded in affirmation of her strong speech, which gratified George Mitchell, adviser to Howard University's team. "I wanted my students to come away from the experience knowing that with enough preparation and courage, they would have most of what is required to participate in negotiations of almost any type."
Stunned by the passion of Richmond's plea, the other groups took a collective breath. As U.S. negotiator Jennifer Mullan, a junior studying Spanish and international studies at Washington College, said later, "Although they were our allies, our objective was to get out. There was only so much negotiation we could do." Later, fellow negotiator Jacob Ritzler, a junior majoring in international studies, was philosophical. "It was their job to act belligerent in the beginning."
North Vietnamese spokesman Emmjolee Mendoza, a junior political science and philosophy major at Catholic University, spoke up. She pointed to a goal all hold in common, the desire for a cease-fire, then recounted the North Vietnamese position, beginning with the Geneva Accords of 1954 that promised reunification elections. The United States refused to back those elections for fear that Ho Chi Minh would win; they never were held. She called for reunification of the country, complete U.S. withdrawal and return of POWs.
Catholic University faculty adviser Maryann Cusimano brought Mendoza and Eric Maldonado from her global issues class, in which, she says, "We discuss how even smaller, weaker countries can sometimes prevail over stronger countries, as in this example of the North Vietnamese versus the United States."
When Mendoza finished, the delegates fidgeted with their pencils. Who could speak? The United States has already hammered out an agreement with North Vietnam, behind the backs of the South Vietnamese; the Soviets want that agreement ratified. Only the South Vietnamese have everything to lose. Gabriel suggested a break.
Now the fun began. Off-the-record negotiations--outside the negotiating room--began in earnest. Small groups of diplomats met in the kitchen, to the sides of the room, in the hallway. Gabriel, Mullan and Ritzler met with the South Vietnamese, trying to determine how and where to divide the country so that South Vietnam can survive.
Back at the negotiating table after a lunch break, the Soviets outlined their plan for a cease-fire, using the map as a guide. When the North Vietnamese presented their plan, talks broke down and, once again, hallway diplomacy began. Gabriel motioned to Maldonado to follow him. Mendoza grabbed her notepad, catching up with him in the hallway, saying, "I think I have to use the bathroom, too!" Their secret talks commenced in a far corner of the library. But the North Vietnamese wouldn't budge from their position, and again the South Vietnamese were left out.
The peace talk simulation and its participants came to Washington College thanks to George Irani, visiting professor in political science. Moderator Jeff Helsing, program director at the United States Institute of Peace, knew Irani when he was a senior fellow at USIP in 1997 and 1998.
Irani conceived the idea of a peace talk simulation while at the USIP, which works to strengthen the United States' capacity to promote peaceful resolution. "I talked with Jeff Helsing about doing something original, not a model, but a small concentrated focus on peace treaty forums." April's simulation was the first. USIP and the Goldstein Program in Public Affairs at Washington College sponsored the experiment. The advisers were excited about the educational value of the project, "learning by doing," Helsing says. Mitchell says, "This sort of exercise provides students a fairly realistic introduction to the complexities of interaction and, to some degree, international politics."
After a hard day's negotiation, delegates and their advisers met, dined and talked with Peter Rodman, director of National Security Programs at the Nixon Center, who served as special assistant to Henry Kissinger from 1969 to 1977. Rodman's insider view of diplomacy inspired new resolve in the negotiators, who were to return to the table the next day.
The second day began with "a war of papers." To break the impasse, the U.S. threatened to bomb North Vietnam. Buoyed by news that Congress has passed legislation cutting funding for the war, the North Vietnamese shrugged off the threat. Mullan said, "The North Vietnamese looked at that and said, 'We'll wait it out.' " Meanwhile, the South Vietnamese announced that they would invite China to the talks, capitalizing on the political insecurities of the USSR. Finally, said Mullan, "We all sat down and agreed to begin negotiating again."
Gabriel says that the Washington College team had hoped to change history. "We knew we couldn't stop reunification," he said. "I was hoping to get a lasting cease-fire that would allow the South Vietnamese government time to mount a defense and the U.S. to leave." But that was not to be. Mullan said, "The way the events fell, the end was very similar to what had occurred. It showed me the difficulties that negotiators face."
Next year, a peace talk simulation again will be held at Washington College, with the addition of military participants from West Point. Gabriel said it was a perfect setting, providing a place a little set apart where one can be involved yet still detached. Botes agreed. "The setting somewhat away from the city and the friendly atmosphere really helped to get everyone in the mood for the process."
Irani also is pleased with the simulation. "This exercise demonstrates the importance of having a good chemistry between setting and participants. Washington College is a pacesetter in international studies and the Paris Peace Conference simulation is great proof of that." Next year, Irani says, "We're planning to simulate the Dayton Peace Accords." Signed in 1995, the accords brought to an end nearly four years of war in the former Yugoslavia in which about 250,000 people died and another 2.7 million became refugees.
About this year's simulation, Mullan mused, "I came into this exercise very interested in how peace is negotiated. It was an eye-opening experience." Gabriel, Mullan and Ritzler are getting ready for the next one. Ritzler said, "Do it again? Sure. It was a useful exercise and practice in conflict resolution. Besides, it was fun--we ate great food and met interesting people."
Carol Casey is the media relations associate at Washington College.
|
