Opportunity defines future plans

By Mark Lehman

In September 2006, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) held an Informal Ministerial meeting to assess the unfolding events in Afghanistan and the continued efforts to create a NATO Response Force. Part of its effort to reach out to the “successor generation” included a Model NATO for students, held at the same time and place — Portoroz, Slovenia.

Mark, standing in the back row at the Informal Ministerial press conference, listens to NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Slovenian Defense Minister Karl Viktor Erjavel.

Forty-three students from 25 of the 26 NATO nations participated. I was the only American invited to attend.

Being the only American never completely sank in until I stepped off the plane in Ljubljana, saw the gorgeous Julian Alps, and could not read a single sign, nor understand any of the conversations around me. Luckily, everyone changed from Slovene into fluent English once they identified me as an American (apparently a rather easy thing to do).

Monday through Wednesday, starting at 8 or 9am and lasting until 10 or 11pm, our goal was to discuss the same issues being discussed by NATO and to represent our country’s position as best as possible. To prepare for this, I was required to research NATO’s actions of the past decade and the United States’ position on each. Thursday and Friday we met with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, our respective defense minister, sat in on press conferences, and generally observed how an actual summit transpires.

I met with now former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his staff — an overwhelming experience simply because the amount of power in that room was indescribable.

What really left a lasting impact and completely changed my perspective was the casual interaction between people and the conversations we had during breaks or late at night after the end of a day’s events. While most of our conversations focused on politics, international relations, and policy, we did discuss cultural topics. At one point I got into a nightlong discussion on sports where I found myself trying to explain American football using a lined tablecloth and empty beer cans. It was a futile attempt.

I was completely shocked at how much knowledge and exposure they had to American politics. They were acutely aware of the impact our policies had on their countries and lamented Americans were unaware of this. I was asked about campaigns/candidates (this was before the midterm elections), laws, and Supreme Court decisions I’ve never heard of. Considering political science is essentially my life, being stumped was mind-blowing and spoke volumes about how informed they were about the subject. I found myself wishing Americans were just as aware as the Europeans.

The conversations gave me a keen insight into how European students, at least this group, viewed international relations and America’s actions. Their questioning of America’s actions, which to them seem completely irrational and harmful to America’s long-term interests, was done not to lambaste America, but a means to understand and to give the benefit of the doubt to Americans as individuals.

Above: Mark visited the Slovian town of Piran between meetings. Below he is pictured with his group partners Norwegian Hedda Lingaas and Slovene David Snoj (right).

From research, I was aware European countries, generally, relied on diplomacy and valued international organizations beyond what America traditionally has. It was with near unanimity I found the main opposition toward U.S. policy derives from the blatant disregard for international laws and organizations. In terms of foreign policy, the U.S. traditionally takes an inward-out approach in that it projects a set of values upon the world, or acts in domestic interests first and then looks towards the international impact.

In talking with my European colleagues, they had an outward-in approach. Their countries’ actions were analyzed first for global impact before broaching domestic impact. Again, this is a viewpoint that can be largely ignored or underplayed, until you see the passion behind our allies’ beliefs.

That being said, the lasting impression this experience left on me was the importance of communication. Every participant was fluent in English. Actually, most were fluent in three or four languages, switching between languages without skipping a beat; I was the only one fluent only in one language. The conundrum was that while we all spoke the same language, it was rare we spoke with the same meaning. At one point there was a three-hour debate on the opium problem in Afghanistan. The general agreement, within the first half hour, was this is a secondary problem; it just took that much longer for everyone to be on the same page simply due to language issues.

I now understand why diplomats generally read from a script and debates in international organizations take so long.

Even so, the more participants talked to each other, the more people understood each other’s cultures and perceptions. This seems like common sense, but it underscores the importance of diplomacy. We all entered this simulation knowing very little about each other’s cultures and how they think on an individual basis. As an example, there is the common belief the French are arrogant, a preconception I was guilty of. However, after actually engaging my French partner, I discovered what comes off as arrogance is mostly a sense of humor and we were able to cooperate quite well.

The same occurred between Muslims from Turkey and a Jewish Belgium citizen who used to be Israeli. At first, the dislike and almost blatant hatred was rather obvious, but the more they interacted, the friendlier they became. The same goes for every country, stereotypes were quickly dispelled and the cooperation and jovial atmosphere was fantastic.

It is nearly impossible to understand how dialog, the basis for diplomacy, can play a pivotal role until it actually takes place. Again, this is something no textbook or class can ever teach. Actual travel and interaction can, for which I am incredibly grateful I had the opportunity to experience.

---

Mark Lehman ’07

Mark had a chance to meet with then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Hometown: Jamison

Double major: Political science and history; minor in international studies

Campus Activities: History Club, Shippensburg ACLU, and Sigma Iota Rho, Pi Sigma Alpha, Phi Alpha Theta, and Phi Kappa Phi honor societies. Undergraduate research, including research grants with Drs. Cynthia Botteron and Christine Senecal. Also earned three academic awards, a conference grant, and an Academy of Political and Social Science junior fellowship.

Future Goals: A doctorate in political science with a concentration in international relations. “I never fully grasped how large and diverse the world is, even among people who are of the same cultural background. I now have a constant desire to travel to other countries simply to talk to people and try to experience as much of a country from a cross-cultural perspective as I can. I plan on traveling around Europe for a month or so this summer, but that is dependent upon what happens with graduate school. …I will certainly keep my eye open for a job that will allow for international travel.”