Student groups square off in foreign policy debate

Despite five months since November's election, IU College Democrats and College Republicans met to square off Wednesday night in a U.S. foreign policy debate in the Frangipani Room in the Indiana Memorial Union. \nThe two parties debated five key issues: United States' policies toward Iraq, Iran, Korea, the United Nations and foreign trade agreements. The College Republicans were represented by Brian Stewart and David White, and the College Democrats were represented by Justin Fallick and Mike Doyle. The debate was moderated by professor Jeffrey Hart of the political science department.\nThroughout the night, both sides stuck to their party lines and at times the debate intensified, especially when discussing the reasoning in going to war with Iraq. \nThe debate opened with each party first making an opening statement summarizing their parties views on foreign policy. The Democrats cited the Republicans' foreign policies as "gung-ho, Yosemite Sam policies," and that, "they do not work." Their three overarching goals pertaining to foreign policy are to fight a global war on terror, to stop the spread of nuclear and biological weapons, and to spread democracy throughout the world. \nThe Republicans then gave their opening statement, which claimed their foreign policies are "well-founded in American tradition," and that their party "stands to fight the war on terror. Since 9-11, we've hunted down 78 percent of al-Qaida terrorists." \nThe debate then shifted to the parties' policies on Iraq. Stewart said invading Iraq "was justified, as Saddam Hussein defied United Nations resolutions for 12 years." Doyle agreed with the notion that invading Iraq was justified, but then said that "the fact remains that President Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. First, it was about weapons of mass destruction, then it was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, then it was to instill democracy."\nAfter the portion of the debate pertaining to Iraq had completed, the discussion then shifted toward policies regarding Iran. \n"It is imperative for Iran not to have nuclear weapons," a member of the College Democrats said. "They are a radical regime which has financially supported terrorist groups such as Hamas." \nThe Republicans agreed with these statements, however they felt the Democrats' approach to Iran leaned too much toward "appeasing" them, and that "this is the same political organization that said that we were too strong in invading Iraq to disarm them."\nThe debating about policies pertaining to North Korea, the United Nations and foreign trade agreements saw much of the recurring themes from the discussions pertaining to Iraq and Iran. The parties agreed on some aspects of their respective policies but an overall feeling of disagreement and dissent remained. \nAfter the debate portion of the night had finished, the audience was given the opportunity to ask the panel members some questions. A question was posed to both parties regarding a statement by President Bush about the relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq just three days before Congress voted to go to war with Iraq. The Republicans said the invasion has weakened al-Qaeda's capabilities and has clearly diminished global terrorism. The Democrats then responded that, to illustrate how convoluted the information was, Vice President Cheney twice said before the invasion that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq and later on denied making these statements.\n"It was a productive debate, a somewhat predictable debate," Hart said. "The students did a very good job."\nJustin Fallick of the College Democrats said the debate went pretty well.\n"It articulated important issues, and it was a good forum for students to get involved," he said. \n-- Contact Staff Writer Craig Ginsberg at cginsber@indiana.edu.