Democrats and Republicans debate American involvement abroad

College Democrats and College Republicans discussed American involvement in foreign affairs at their annual debate in Hodson Hall on Monday. The event was sponsored by Charles St. News.

Dan Adler, the debate’s moderator and the co-founder and president of Charles St. News, said the debate was intended to be as interactive as possible. The debate topic was chosen online by attendees before the event.

Audience members actively participated by asking questions to the debaters on both sides.

“Our goal with events such as this is to encourage political discussion on campus,” College Republicans President Liana DiCredico said.

Freshman Emma Cook and juniors Cameron O’Leary and Joel Pally served as debaters from the College Democrats. Sophomores Dana Ettinger and Michael Bledsoe and junior Daniel Takash debated on behalf of the College Republicans.

The Democrats argued that US intervention in international conflict can be more helpful than harmful, and advocated that the US adopt more interventionist policies. In contrast, the Republicans took the stance that US intervention does more harm than good, and said that the government ought to refrain from intervening in international conflict situations.

Pointing to the historical economic, humanitarian and military successes of US interventionist policies, the Democrats argued in their opening statement that US intervention is ultimately helpful in subduing international conflict.

“Some of our greatest economic partners have benefitted from US intervention,” Cook said. “South Korea would not currently exist if it were not for US intervention, and Japan was rebuilt after World War II with large US influence. On the human rights side, the US has also saved millions of lives with its intervention. The US and NATO forces prevented ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo...In short, US intervention when we are invited to help in such cases as South Korea and Colombia saves lives and creates vibrant, democratic economies.”

The Republicans argued against the notion of making committed alliances and asserted that the US should primarily support the interests of its domestic citizens. They also pointed to historical instances in which US intervention policies had failed.

“If the US has any affirmative obligation when we necessarily need to intervene, it should only be to stop credible threats to US security using military force,” Takash said. “We do believe, however, we can exert a positive influence on the world by working with other countries through diplomatic channels, but by no means should this take the form of committed alliances... We should not take military intervention in other countries because we have such an atrocious record of it.”

The Republicans also addressed the earlier points made by the Democrats of their historical examples of intervention in Japan and South Korea.

“When we intervened in Japan, we had entirely destroyed the country and were only then trying to rebuild it,”  Bledsoe said. “Similarly, in South Korea, the whole country was overrun, but we took it back and returned it to the people only when they were ready to handle a democracy. Democracies, as such, cannot be forcibly imposed; they have to be willingly accepted, and every single failure is a result of us trying to impose a democracy where it is not possible or not yet ready.”

The Democrats also countered the Republicans’ points about the historical failures of US interventionist policies.

“I agree with my colleague in that limited intervention has worked in the cases of South Korea and Japan, but there are societies that are not yet ready for a full democratic society, such as the case of Iran,” O’Leary said. “However, there are still places where we can, and do, spread democracy, through sanctions and military engagement. For instance, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina have both become democracies and are now vying for EU members only 20 years after we intervened in their respective genocide conflicts.”

The Democrats also addressed the earlier point that the Republicans made about the US intervening in situations about which it lacks knowledge.

“These knowledge problems have been our own doing,” O’Leary said. “We need to intervene only when the people actually want us to come in.”

The session concluded with an open question-and-answer segment from the audience. Some of the questions included the positions of the debaters on the issues of drone warfare, unilateral action, aid to Israel and the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Members of both parties also gave brief closing statements in which they outlined their respective positions on the topic that they were discussing. The Democrats reiterated their position of limited intervention and underlined the ways in which previous interventions had allowed for the US military to gain experience and had ensured American interests overseas.

The Republicans highlighted their position of non-intervention and emphasized their argument that the US does not have a particular duty to spread its ideals abroad, and that other nations were equally capable of sharing the burden of spreading democracy.

Meaghan Coffey, co-president of the College Democrats, felt that the debate was valuable.

“We’re always happy to host debates with the College Republicans because part of our mission is to decrease political apathy and increase activism on campus,” Coffey said. “We would consider this event a success if even a few of the attendees are inspired to think critically about their own opinion on the topic. We’re not in the business of changing people’s minds — it’s enough just to know that we might be helping students learn more about the two-party process and the complexities of the political system... There’s a whole spectrum between liberalism and conservatism... So when we host these specific debates, we get to find out more about our own opinions and hopefully help attendees do the same.”

According to Adler, Charles St. News sponsored the event to reach out to Hopkins students and help them connect to events that are occurring off-campus and throughout the world.

“We’re kind of a new organization on campus,” Adler said. “We’re a Hopkins journal publication and our overall objective is to kind of bridge the gap between on-campus and off-campus things and events,” he said.