WWS holds second forum on effects of terrorism

<Posted 09/24/2001 10:45>

Noting that “this is a community that in troubled times values analysis and reflection,” Dean Michael Rothschild convened a forum on Friday, September 21 entitled, “Responses to Terrorism: Security, Economics and Democracy.”  Speaking in Dodds Auditorium to an audience of over one hundred made up primarily of graduate and undergraduate students, Rothschild said his goal for this forum was to engage Woodrow Wilson School experts to help the School community “think through what are very new and very troubling questions.”  The atmosphere in the auditorium was more reflective and resolute compared to the heightened tension felt the afternoon of September 11, when Dean Rothschild convened the first town meeting in the wake of terrorist attacks on Washington, DC and New York City earlier that morning.  

Panelists for the September 21 forum included Professor of Economics and International Affairs Paul R. Krugman, Assistant Professor of Politics and International Affairs Joshua A. Tucker,  Kevin Lindsey MPP ’02, a career CIA officer with experience in the Middle East and counterterrorism, and George Sibley MPP ’02, a U.S. foreign service officer most recently posted in Amman, Jordan, and former Iran desk officer at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, DC. 

Krugman spoke first, prefacing his remarks by describing the current situation as a “bizarre place to be for those interested in economics.”  He was concerned with the misused metaphors describing the situation following September 11 as a “war.”  Krugman argued the current situation looks only passingly like a war from an economic perspective, and that the closest analogy is the recent Asian financial crisis. According to Krugman, “The United States looks more like South Korea in 1998, rather than post Pearl Harbor.”  

Next, Sibley discussed some of the policy implications the U.S. now faces.  He prefaced his remarks by stating that his views were personal, and did not reflect U.S. government policy.  Sibley noted that the fight against terrorism is nothing new.  “Plenty of resources have been devoted to this up until now, but we still had the event last Tuesday. However, this is so different in degree as to be different in kind.”  He predicted that a commercial airline will not be used as a terrorist missile again, and that policy makers should avoid fighting the last war. “Don’t prepare for another of these events and risk missing the next one.”  Sibley also urges caution.  “We must protect ourselves against ourselves.  We may make short term decisions that in the long term may prove damaging, and may motivate the next generation of terrorists if we respond overly aggressively. We now have some worldwide sympathy which we can use to our advantage if we don’t react too rashly.” 

Tucker echoed Sibley’s call for caution, and said there is a “strong temptation to unconditionally support our president, but as policy analysts, we need to continue to think critically.” Tucker was concerned about possible implications of our actions, both at home and abroad.  The United States, in its effort to befriend as many countries as possible before taking any military action, may ally itself with countries whose policies run counter to U.S. interests and stated goals.  “For example, if we ally with Pakistan, are we no longer condemning their nuclear buildup?  Is human rights in Chechnya off the table?” Tucker stated that there must be a balance between long term  and short term security.  He urged policy makers to think critically and avoid a rush of policy proposals that may not be in the country’s best interest in the long term. 

Lindsey, stating that his views were entirely personal, noted that the attacks on September 11 were preceded by several events, including the terrorist attacks on embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, as well as the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.  According to Lindsey, Osama bin Laden – identified by the U.S. as one of the primary suspects in the terrorist attacks – is a singular leader, one with charisma and an appeal to Muslims across class and race lines. He sees two steps which would help mitigate terrorist attacks: arresting and incarcerating bin Laden would remove monetary support and charismatic leadership from the terrorist groups, and acknowledging the grievances of Arabs and Palestinians would help to avoid alienating the Muslim dispossessed. 

Speaking from the audience, Jack Matlock, John L. Weinberg/Goldman Sachs and Company visiting professor of public and international affairs and former U.S. ambassador to the USSR, defined terrorism as the “use of violence against civilians to achieve a political purpose.  He argued that there is no legitimate reason to use violence against civilians, and if the United States uses force, it is legitimizing the use of force by terrorists.  “Human rights must be protected in every society,” he stated. 

Rothschild brought the event to an end by reinforcing the idea that this discussion is not closed.  “This is a very complicated time,” he said.  “We are a democracy. Many feel strongly that the basic elements of America -- openness, democracy, and deliberation --have been attacked. There is a common allegiance to these things, but a severe disagreement about what they mean… To expect people to abandon their political beliefs and struggle to seek the common good is to forget what democracy is about.”