The stigma of political apathy at SIUC seems to be fading as students and faculty engaged in a charged discussion Monday on the circumstances surrounding the Iran-Contra Affair of the 1980s.

The panel discussion, Patriotism Never Looked so Bad, was scheduled in anticipation of Col. Oliver North’s Tuesday appearance at Shryock Auditorium. The panel sought to illuminate some of the federal government’s transgressions during the affair. About 100 people attended the event.

Critics of North contend he was an instrumental figure in the installation of a top-secret financial pipeline, through which illegal funds obtained from the sale of high-tech weaponry to Iran were funneled to Nicaraguan Contra rebels. It also is said that the Reagan administration was aware of North’s activities and, in fact, made them possible by illegally authorizing Contra aid.

Advertisement

North sympathizers argue the former colonel is a true patriot, and was right in arming the Contras, whom they view as freedom fighters. They further contend that he did not subvert the Constitution in doing so.

Critics counter, saying the Contras were not freedom fighters, but ruthless warriors responsible for premeditated acts of rape and terror, the intimidation and slaughter of innocent Nicaraguan civilians, and the kidnapping and murder of religious figures.

Richard Whitney of the National Lawyers Guild opened the discussion. Whitney clarified the purpose of the panel, refuting the accusation hurled by some audience members that panelists were speaking solely to slam North and his cohorts.

We’re not trying to single out North, Whitney said. The cruelty of American foreign policy does not just rest on North’s shoulders, but the Reagan administration and Congress is also to blame.

David Wilson, SIUC history professor, added that the reorganization of national security since World War II and paranoia of the American public concerning Communist expansion also contributed to the events of the 1980s.

Wilson said the establishment of a top-secret national security state, embodying entities like the CIA and Department of Defense, was created to combat the Communist threat in the Soviet Union. He argued that the clandestine nature of the security network allows for the subversion of foreign policy initiatives. North’s actions in the Iran-Contra Affair, he said, exemplify this trend.

Wilson also said the American public had a hand in creating this state, supporting the anti-Communist measures following World War II.

Advertisement*

We made Ollie North possible, he said. As a citizenry, we decided that fighting that external enemy was so important, we should abdicate our freedoms.

Why, after the Cold War is over, is the national security state still in place?

Al Melone, SIUC professor of political science, delineated some constitutional aspects of the Iran-Contra venture. Melone argued that the U.S. Constitution favors collective rather than individual decision making. And, in foreign matters, it plainly states that the executive role is more ceremonial than that of Congress. Though the president is the commander in chief of the military, it is Congress that has the authority to declare war and regulate commerce, Melone said.

It is the misinterpretation of these powers that has enabled the executive office to run amok in foreign matters.

There are only two powers assigned to the president., Melone said. Those powers pale in comparison to the powers of Congress.

Reagan’s people always were ready to look at the intent of the framers (of the Constitution). The truth was that they didn’t know much about the intent of the framers.

Melone concluded his presentation by saying that government, to avoid debacles like Iran-Contra, must adhere to words of the Constitution and apply the concept of shared authority to international affairs.

We should get back to what the framers intended, Melone said. They had a kernel of truth here, not in Oliver North, but that Congress should have a role in limiting the president in foreign affairs.

Other panelists included Dr. William Garner, SIUC emeritus professor in political science, Georgian Hartzog and Lillian Adams, both members of Witnesses of Peace.

Garner spoke about the role of a hegemon (the dominant nation-state in a certain area) in international politics. He railed against America’s role in Latin American affairs, saying the United States has meddled with every problem in the area, and wrongly subjugated, whom he facetiously referred to as, the little brown men.

The U.S. has applied the laissez-faire concept to the international sphere, he said. No hegemon has the right to tell another sovereign what to do.

Following the panelist presentations, audience members were given the opportunity to ask questions. Queries ranging from what audience members termed goofy and conspiratorial to those attacking the panel were fired toward the speakers.

The exchange became especially heated when an audience member asked why the event’s organizers had not chosen any North sympathizers to balance the discussion. The room erupted in random chatter until order was restored by the moderator.

A coherent exchange ensued as the panel responded to questions about illegal drug transports during Iran-Contra and broader questions concerning the media’s role in international scandals and societal perceptions of patriotism.