INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adverselyaffect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. V·M·I University Microfilms Internalional A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, M148106-1346 USA 313,761-4700 800'521-0600 Order Number 910'1042 The conceptual background to the United States lnstitute of Peace Miller, Rhoda, Ph.D. University of Hawaii, 1990 Copyright @1990 by Miller, Rhoda. All rights reserved. V-Mal 300 N. Zeeb Rd AnnArbor,MI48106 THE CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND TO THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICAN STUDIES AUGUST 1990 By Rhoda Miller Dissertation Committee: Floyd W. Matson, Chairman Stuart Gerry Brown Reuel Denney James M. McCutcheon Glenn D. Paige Carolyn M. Stephenson C by Rhoda Miller 1990 All rights reserved iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is dedicated to Senator Spark M. Matsunaga l'homme incompris: without his tireless efforts there would be no United States Institute of Peace iv ABSTRACT This dissertation is an investigation into the ideas that formed the United States Institute of Peace in order to ascertain how they fit into traditional American thought and belief. It uses primary source material, including interviews, letters, government documents as well as historical references. It traces the historical development and reasons for institutionalization of the concept of a Department of Peace and analyzes the institute that resu.lted from the federal legislative process, comparing it with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. The role of peace education, peace research and peace action in shaping the institute is also presented. The author concludes that in the four years of its existence the united States Institute of Peace has made considerable achievements despite underfunding and the leadership of a largely conservative Board of Directors. If it can tailor its agenda to fit the needs of a new intellectual climate of opinion, the Institute should be a leader in the peace research field. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments. iv Abstract. ••••••••••••••••• eo 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• v Preface•. vii Chapter One: Philosophical Heritage. 1 Chapter Two: Institutional Heritage. 26 Chapter Three: Institutionalization. 46 Chapter Four: The ACDA Lesson. 70 Chapter Five: Peace Education. 81 Chapter six: Peace Research••• 115 Chapter Seven: The USIP Today. 164 Chapter Eight: Conclusion..••• 187 Bibliography . 205 Index ' . 226 vi PREFACE The purpose of this dissertation is to a$certain how the concepts that motivated people to institutionalize peace education and peace research within the federal government are a part of the historic tradition of American thought and belief. The work is divided into three parts: Historical Heritage, Conceptual Background, and Analysis. The first chapter considers America's religious heritage and the just war concepts that inform American thinking about peace and war. Chapter two examines Americans' propensity to codify their civic convictions by relating the saga of efforts to institutionalize American concepts of peace from George Washington's suggestion of a Department of Peace to the present united states Institute of Peace. The organized effort for institutionalization as a social movement organization is also considered. The third chapter defines the terms of the debate that took place in federal government hearings on the establishment of a peace academy, and sets these terms in historical perspective. Ideas such as America's uniqueness and messianic vision are explored. The concepts leading to the establishment of the United states Institute of Peace (USIP) closely parallel those that led to the founding of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, which was intended to satisfy the desires of peace proponents. Chapter Four traces the development of that agency and outlines vii the caveats that informed founders of the USIP, which was orignally envisioned as a peace academy. Accordingly, Chapter Five reviews the history of peace education in schools and colleges in the united states, and critiques some programs now in place. The role of the federal government in education is also examined. Similarly, Chapter six traces the development of peace research, with special attention to conflict resolution, from colonial times to the present. The tension between strategists and critical peace researchers, which I call "the two culture debate," is probed. The last part consists of an assessment of the first four years of the USIP in Chapter Seven and concluding remarks in Chapter Eight. I believe that, despite administration objections and the leadership of a largely conservative board of directors, the institute has been remarkably even-handed in its support of all forms of peace research. This raises the question of the role of intellectuals in shaping public philosophy and participating in social action, which is briefly considerd. Finally, I suggest that the American peace movement is part of a global trend toward democratic participation in publ Lo affairs and commitment to nonviolent solutions to conflict, and this has implications for the fledgling institution. My thanks to my numerous correspondents and interviewees; their help was invaluable. Interpretations of the information received are, of course, my own. viii CHAPTER ONE: PHILOSOPHICAL HERITAGE Ironically, the united States Institute of Peace was born on October 19, 1984, in the penumbra of the Defense establishment: legislation creating the Institute was an appendage (Title XVII) to the Defense Authorization Bill (P.L. 98-525). The reason for this seeming contradiction was that from its conception the Institute was sUbject to the exigencies of political maneuvering. Its long gestation process began in the Carter administration, but by the time it was ready to be shaped into legislative form, a new Reagan administration opposed the measure. Proponents of the legislation attached the provision for a peace institute to a bill the conservative President would not veto, thereby extracting a sort of rough poetic justice against an administration at that time given more to bellicosity than diplomacy in the practice of its foreign policy. In this regard, the Institute joins the ranks of other institutions created by Americans to correct the disparity between avowed principles and empirical practices in our society: A civil Rights Commission to safeguard basic citizen rights embodied in our constitution and codified in our laws; an anti­ trust division in the Justice Department to investigate violations of free market practices, the bedrock of our capitalistic system; an Environmental Protection Agency to monitor the way we husband our natural resources, hailed as 1 irreplaceable in numerous acts creating national parks, forests, landmarks and watershed areas. As numerous witnesses testified during the Congressional hearings on the establishment of the USIP, there was a perceived dichotomy between the principles of a democratic, peace-loving nation and the practices of that nation in the form of three service academies and five war colleges to train young people to wage war, along with an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons and a huge peacetime military bUdget. The movement for a peace institute began in 1976, when S. 1976, the George Washington Peace Academy Act, failed to pass out of the subcommittee on education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. As a result, concerned citizens formed N-PAC (the National Peace Academy campaign), and in 1978 they were able to convince legislato~s to create a commission on Proposals for the National Academy of Peace and Conflict Resolution. This commission, chaired by Senator Spark M. Matsunaga of Hawaii, carried out its mandate to investigate existing peace programs in higher education institutions and to consider the feasibility, practicality and possible structure of a Peace Academy. Twelve pUblic hearings were conducted across the United States. After the commission completed its work, it recommended to President Reagan and Congress the establishment of a United