Adelphi Participates in Nation-Wide Forum

by Jessica Lancia

"Serious reflection on important issues is central to Adelphi," Political Science Professor Katie Laatikainen stated. Last weeks lecture entitled "Terrorists, Tyrants, and Weapons of Mass Destruction: American Foreign Policy Options in a Dangerous World," gave the Adelphi community the opportunity to do just that. As one of almost 1,000 debates across the country about America's role in the world, Adelphi hosted its debate on October 15th. From 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. three panelists and a moderator sat in front of a semi-filled UC 201 to debate what America's foreign policy should be, especially concerning security issues.

The debate was moderated by professor Laatkainen and presented by three Adelphi students: Robert Meekins from Political Science, Kyla Cathey from History, and Dobromira Banova from International Studies. Each presented a different foreign policy option for the United States.

Robert Meekins presented the viewpoint that pre-emptive action should be used as a primary military strategy. He stated, "Our choice of national security policies must be fundamentally guided by the necessity of protecting America from ever experiencing [the tragedy of September 11th] again."

He continued by proposing a strategy which entails using military force to "meet the threats posed by hostile nations and groups seeking to acquire nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons." Meekins stressed the ineffectiveness of international laws and stated that although he favored allied help, American should not wait for international support if waiting will "seriously impair our capability to take action."

Meekins also argued that containment would not work to deter the threats of terrorism and rogue nations with a negative agenda and argued against waiting for an imminent threat to pose itself before taking action that advanced technology has made today's threats "invisible and untraceable." He cautioned, however, that the preemptive strategy be used only after all other diplomatic means dialed and "when the risks of waiting far outweigh the risks of action." Claiming that, "September 11 reinforced the fact that the central threat to American security has been and continues to be terrorism," Banova outlined her view that the central element to the US foreign policy should be that of fighting terrorism. She stated that although rogue states were "very disconcerting" because of the potential acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, the US should not divert itself from its main purpose of defeating Al-Qaeda.

Dobromira Banova advocated military and economic containment and stated that "while rogue states are often the usual suspects for harboring terrorists, the United States cannot and should not rush into unilateral pre-emptive wars to help the world get rid of evil." Preemption, she stated, should only be used as a last resort because if it is not, then the US will set a "dangerous precedent" that might influence other nations to act the same way.

Banova stated that "this country cannot and should not make t its priority to export its democracy and freedom everywhere in the world." By condemning states and giving more foreign policy aid to democratic allies, Banova stated, the United States could continue to foster human rights.

Banova expressed fear that is the US continues to play its role as the world's "democratizer" it will be looked upon negatively by the world community as an imperialistic power. Containment and deterrence are the keys to achieving international support and also to protecting the United States from more terrorist attacks.

Kyla Cathey called for a US foreign policy which stressed multilateralism. She said that joint support would result in the long-term benefits. Unilateralism, Cathey stated, creates a detrimental anti-US sentiment. "The United States is seen as the playground bully," Cathey exclaimed. She further stated that working together with the international community would help rebuild that image. Cathey also stated the importance of working with the international community. "We couldn't have gotten the 3,000 terrorists what we did without the help of other nations," she said.

Cathey also criticized the role that the US has adopted in dealing with the United Nations, stating that the UN was ideated by the US and by not following its rules, America is sending a message of hypocrisy to the world. Cathey pushed the fact that the US should lead by example and use United Nations and international courts for the trying of war criminals.

"Superpowers don't last forever," Cathey exclaimed. Global cooperation is needed now, so that it can serve in our long-term self interest. Following each of the panelists' six minute presentations, the two remaining panelists were asked to present a rebuttal. Once the intra-panelist debates ended, the audience was urged to ask questions. Professor Laatikainen commented: "Personally I was impressed with the turnout and with the thoughtful commentary by both students and panelists during open debate. Challenging questions were posed to the panelists and they remained in form in articulating responses from their particular perspective on security strategy. This sort of thoughtful debate is just the tonic to warm the cockles of a political scientist's heart!"

A poll was held at the end of the debate asking the audience to vote on the three issues. Multilateralism gained 44% of the vote, and the realist approach gained 43%. 14% of the audience voted strategy of preemption.