Duke Responds to Terrorism:
Wednesday Feb. 27: “The Arab Media’s Coverage of the War on Terrorism”
Hafez Al-Mirazi, Washington bureau chief for Al Jazeera Television, addressed “The Arab Media’s Coverage of the War on Terrorism” at 5 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 27, at Duke University. The event took place in the Fleishman Commons at the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy.
Al-Mirazi has been at Al Jazeera since 2000. Before that, he served as a correspondent for the BBC World Service and as a talk show host for the Arab network of America and the Arab News Network. He holds a master’s degree in world politics from Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and a bachelor’s degree in political sciences from Cairo University in Egypt.
Monday Nov. 26: “Medical Aspects of Terrorism”
A forum hosted by Duke University Medical Center examined what the medical community is doing to respond to and prepare for acts of terrorism.
The session, which was free and open to the public, is the eighth in a series of forums organized by Duke in the wake of the events of Sept. 11. The 90-minute forum was held in the Bryan Student Center on Duke’s West Campus. Presentations were followed by questions and answers.
The program began with comments from Dr. R. Sanders Williams, dean of the Duke University School of Medicine and vice chancellor for academic affairs at Duke University Medical Center.
Dr. Barton Haynes, chair of the department of medicine at Duke University Medical Center and director of the Duke Human Vaccine Institute and Dr. Joseph Heitman, associate professor of genetics, pharmacology and cancer biology and an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, moderated the forum, which featured the following topics and speakers:
Medical aspects of bioterrorism –
Medical aspects of chemical toxins used in terrorism –
Medical aspects of radiation in terrorism –
Psychological responses to terrorism –
Dr. R. Sanders Williams, reminded the audience that terrorism of any kind is intended to scare large numbers of people, not just those directly affected or injured by a terrorist act. Williams noted that the purpose of the Duke forums is to help the community keep terrorism in perspective and to learn what the risks and realities of terrorism are.
“It is through education that we can physically and mentally help ourselves and our institutions to be prepared,” he said.
Dr. Keith Kaye, explained that biological warefare has been used for centuries as a means of spreading illness to large numbers of people. As early as the 14th century, Mongols catapulted cadavers of plague victims into enemy cities to spread disease.
Duke Hospital officials work closely with local, state and national agencies, including the health department and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to prepare for the possibility of bioterrorist activity in the Durham area. Kaye emphasized that, in the event of an attack, all hospitals would work under the direction of government authorities to diagnose, quarantine and treat patients.
Dr. Woodhall “Sandy” Stopford, noted that terrorists often use weapons of convenience – those that are readily available and do not have to be constructed or imported. He said the substances most likely to be used in a chemical terrorist attack are industrial gases stored in large volumes that could be easily released and dispersed.
He said the best way for people to avoid danger during a chemical accident or attack is to stay indoors and avoid the plume of chemicals that will eventually pass and be diluted in the environment.
Stopford added that some of the most important lessons learned in past attacks, including the 1994 sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway system, were that emergency and medical workers need to be prepared not only to treat victims of an attack, but to protect themselves against secondary exposure to chemical attacks.
Randy Jirtle, professor of radiation oncology, said the likelihood of radiation terrorism occurring in the United States is relatively low, especially because nuclear weapons are not weapons of convenience. It would be difficult for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons inside the United States or import them from another country.
John Fairbank, explained that the intended psychological effect of terrorism is to erode a group’s sense of safety and security. He noted that natural healing processes help most people recover from traumatic events, but those events that we have no way of predicting, such as the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, will cause the most lasting psychological damage.
“People tend to underestimate the probability that they will be involved in common events, such as automobile accidents, and overestimate their risk for rare events, such as contracting anthrax,” explained Fairbank.
Thursday, Oct. 25:”The Technologies of Counterterrorism“
The dean of Duke University’s Pratt School of Engineering and the director of the school’s Fitzpatrick Center for Photonics and Communication Systems discussed “The Technologies of Counterterrorism” at a forum Thursday, Oct. 25 in room 125 Hudson Hall, on Science Drive on the university’s West Campus.
The forum was moderated by Dean Kristina Johnson. Speakers were:
David J. Brady, director of the Fitzpatrick Center and professor of electrical and computer engineering,
Leslie Collins, Assistant Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering Biography
Allan Shang, Assistant Clinical Professor of Anesthesiology Biography
Amin Vahdat, Assistant Professor of Computer Science Biography
“This is the largest opportunity for engineers in a generation to contribute to the public good,” said David Brady.
The opportunity for engineering’s contribution will most likely lie in refining existing technology to meet the needs brought about by threats of terrorism, panelists said. They said that by improving technological devices that already exist, such as bomb detecting sensors, law enforcement officials will be better able to prevent future attacks. Collins said that many sensors that are currently under development cannot clearly determine when a real threat arises, and too often, give off false alarms.
“We simply need better sensors,” she said. “We need better signal processing.”
Panelists also examined safeguards that could be implemented to protect the public. To prevent biological attacks via the mail, Shang suggested that photonic devices could be added to letter sorters to calculate the sizes of particles inside envelopes and compare the results to sizes of known biological hazards such as smallpox or anthrax. Such devices would have to measure particles as small as 1 to 5 microns.
“If you had a detector close to the mail processors, it could set off an alarm before the mail was actually opened [and could do harm],” he said. But other forms of prevention also must be considered, Shang cautioned. He said experts must develop ways of preventing terrorist from simpler attacks such as opening a vile of small pox in an international airport.
“It takes just one smallpox particle to infect someone, who could infect the entire world,” he said.
In addition to providing warning about future attacks, sensors also could be employed to identify terrorists. Instruments such as face recognition devices already exist, but, like other sensors, have very limited capabilities and need further development, said Johnson, who returned Thursday morning from a meeting of the National Science Foundation where the attacks were the focus of discussion.
Cost also plays a major role in determining the use and development of sensors, Brady said. High costs have traditionally prevented the government from taking full advantage of current sensor technology.
“We can’t afford at current cost levels to put sensors everywhere we would like,” he said.
Tuesday, Oct. 9:”The Morality of War in Islamic and Christian Perspective.”
7-8:30 p.m Tuesday, Oct. 9, in the Duke Divinity School’s York Chapel.
Divinity School Dean L. Gregory Jones moderated.
Bruce Lawrence, chair of the religion department,
Religion professor Ebrahim Moosa
Stanley Hauerwas, the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics in the Divinity School
Terrorist Osama bin Laden is acting out of “a feeling of desperation, a feeling of betrayal,” said Bruce B. Lawrence, chairman of the department of religion. The world that evolved after the Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919 has valued the lives of Europeans and Americans, but not those of Africans and Asians, especially Muslims, said Lawrence, who is a scholar of Islamic studies and an Episcopal priest.
Quoting bin Laden’s videotaped statement that was released Sunday, Lawrence said that bin Laden seemed to be pointing out inequities in the treaty signed soon after the end of World War I and also the failed Oslo Treaty of 1993 that promised peace in the Middle East.
In response to an audience question, Lawrence said that from bin Laden’s point of view, the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was a reaction to aggressions against the Islamic nation rather than an assault on the United States.
Other participants in the forum at Duke Divinity School’s York Chapel were Ebrahim Moosa (pictured), professor of religion and a specialist in Islamic thought, and Stanley Hauerwas, a Christian ethicist in the Divinity School. Although the panel moderated by Divinity Dean L. Gregory Jones was sharply divided on several key points, all three speakers said that a policing action would be a more justifiable response to the events of Sept. 11 than the bombings that began Sunday in Afghanistan.
Moosa, a Muslim from South Africa whose home in Cape Town there was bombed three years ago by Islamic vigilantes, said, “The current war is aimed at displacing existing political regimes and coercing entire nations to accept a political order without the consent of the ruled. It violates existing international law and democratic principles.
“When we talk about the current war going on against Afghanistan, euphemistically called a war against terrorism and alternately against Osama bin Laden,” said Moosa, “we are making several false assumptions if we for one moment believe that all the parties to the conflict share the same idea of religion, war, morality, justice, power, politics and economics.” The view from Pakistan, Kenya and South Africa is very different from New York, San Francisco or London, he said.
Hauerwas, an outspoken pacifist, took aim at just-war theorists, saying that just war is “an attempt to say this thing that we normally call murder isn’t (murder).”The strongest case for just war is that it seeks justice in defense of innocent people, he said. The problem with that account is that it takes as its objective an ordered peace that assumes a world at war to be normal.
Most American Christians, said Hauerwas “are blank check people. They go kill whomever the democratically elected leaders ask them to kill.” A better response, he said, would be for Christians to tell their elected leaders that they would continue to back them if they would refrain from violence and take the steps necessary to end violence, even at the cost of more American lives in the interim.
Monday, Oct. 8:”The Terrorism Crisis and the World
|Streaming Video of this forum is available in RealVideo format
Running time 1 hour 44 Minutes.
Harvey began by detailing the attacks’ impact on gross domestic product (GDP). He pegged the loss in income at $165 billion domestically and $250 billion for the rest of the world — estimates he termed conservative. Adding together losses in GDP, equity capitalization and markets, Harvey estimated the total losses sustained by the world’s economies at $1.5 trillion.
Pointing out that the U.S. economy had already been in a period of decline prior to Sept. 11, Harvey said this “mild recession,” coupled with the shock of the attacks and the continuing threat of terrorism, showed how critically linked the world economy is to the health of the U.S. economy: “When the U.S. is in trouble, it’s magnified in the rest of the world.”
Mayer emphasized that, despite the immediate negative impact of the attacks, in the long run the choices we make as a society will determine the true cost. “The cost of fear is greater than the cost of the acts themselves,” he told the crowd at Geneen Auditorium.
Mayer said recent events have put crucial questions about economic globalization into sharper focus. “The temptation will be for us to pull back [from globalization],” he said. “But this is not wise and not possible. We are one world. We cannot afford to disengage from the developing world, to ignore the connection between poverty and terrorism, to simply say, ‘Let the markets work.'”
Proposing a strategy that would draw upon the model of the Marshall Plan following World War II, Mayer called for a move toward increased open trade, restructuring the developing world’s debt, and more partnerships between government and private industry. “We need to look for new ways to stimulate economic development,” he said, “and we need to get serious about health problems in the developing world, especially AIDS.”
Breeden examined the attacks’ effects on such economic indicators as consumer confidence, unemployment, earnings estimates and stock valuations within various industries. Agreeing with Harvey that the U.S. was already experiencing a weakened economy, he said U.S. markets have nearly returned to pre-Sept. 11 levels. He noted, however, that less-developed economies have been slower to bounce back.
Saying he felt somewhat like a “two-handed economist,” Breeden said he finds plenty of good and bad news in the economic forecast. Like Mayer, he said one of his biggest concerns is that events could worsen an already pessimistic economic outlook. Allowing fear to prevail, he said, could lead to “some scary scenarios.”
Tuesday, Oct. 2: “National Security and Civil Liberties: How to Strike the Balance?”
7-8:30 p.m., Room 3043, Duke School of Law.
|Streaming Video of this forum is available in RealVideo format.
Running time 1 hour 29 minutes.
Christopher Schroeder, professor of law and public policy studies and director of the law school’s Program in Public Law, moderated.
Walter E. Dellinger III, Douglas B. Maggs Professor of Law and former acting U.S. solicitor general and adviser to the White House
Robinson O. Everett, professor of law and a constitutional law expert
James D. Boyle, law professor and expert of cyberspace
William W. Van Alstyne, William R. and Thomas S. Perkins Professor of Law and a constitutional law expert
Jerome M. Culp Jr., law professor and expert on race and the law.
The Duke Program in Public Law
The Center on Law, Ethics and National Security
The Duke Law Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Law professor James Boyle said passing new anti-terrorism measures “at breakneck speed” is not the way to arrive at thoughtful legislation. “We’re all going crazy about this,” Boyle told an overflow crowd at Duke Law School. “This is not a time when we’re thinking terribly clearly.”
He said that by adding sunset provisions, Congress can coolly and rationally reconsider its actions in two or three years. House members this week are considering legislation that would give law enforcement officials expanded authority to wiretap suspected terrorists, share intelligence information about them and seize their assets. Other proposals — like halting visas for Arabic people to study in the United States — have been dropped, but illustrate how irrational action can rule the day, Boyle said
Law professor Walter Dellinger, who served as acting U.S. solicitor general and adviser to the White House during the Clinton administration, agreed with Boyle. He said lawmakers cannot possibly predict how anti-terrorism measures now being considered by Congress will affect civil liberties, which is why the next Congress should be required to pass these measures again.
Dellinger, the Douglas B. Maggs Professor of Law, said lawmakers should adopt legislation that affects all Americans equally, rather than take away the legal rights of a select few. “I would be more skeptical and concerned about any proposition that adversely affects some rather than most,” he said.
He added that he was particularly concerned with the use of racial profiling and “how we treat immigrants.”
Law professor Jerome Culp said that, until now, he could not understand how this country placed Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II. But after watching television broadcasts and talking with his students the day after the Sept. 11 attacks, “I realized we’re only two or three terrorist activities away from doing it again.”
Culp said today’s overriding concern with national security issues does not allow for rational discussion of civil liberty issues like racial profiling. Any anti-terrorism measures approved by Congress must guard against the misuse of power by the police and federal agents, he added.
Law professor James Coleman said it is important for people on both sides of the civil liberty-national security debate to work toward a common goal. “We have to recognize, for example, that people today are genuinely afraid for their safety, and that their fear is legitimate. If we simply oppose every outrageous proposal made to secure our safety, we run the risk of undermining civil liberties by making them appear to be in opposition to security,” he said.
Sunday, Sept. 30: A Concert In Memoriam at Duke University Chapel
Samuel Barber Adagio for Strings
Rodney Wynkoop, Conductor
The Duke Chapel Choir
The Duke Chorale
The Choral Society of Durham
The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Community Chorus
The North Carolina Symphony
Some 2,500 people gathered at Duke Sunday night to hear a memorial concert for the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
Organized as an opportunity for community healing through music, the concert conducted by Rodney Wynkoop brought together musicians from the N.C. Symphony and 450 singers from area choruses.
“I think that all of us are here because … music expresses great emotion and loss,” said President Nannerl O. Keohane as she welcomed the capacity audience in Duke Chapel. Keohane said the scope of the tragedy of Sept. 11 is unprecedented, but that the concert “provides an extraordinary experience for all of us here, … a sweet counterpoint” to the pain touching the nation.
Most of the audience watched and listened to the concert from outside the chapel, on large screens set up in Page Auditorium and on the steps across from the chapel quad.
People had begun gathering early for the concert, hoping to get seats in the Chapel, where the performance was given. By 5:30, when ushers for the event reported to work, a large crowd had already formed for the 7 p.m. concert.
“When I got here, it was path wide (from the Chapel door) to the screen,” said Marshall Willis, one of the suited students who handed out programs and collected donations to be funneled to the relief efforts in New York City and Washington, D.C. By 6 p.m. cars already lined the west side of Chapel Drive, and by 6:15 drivers were turning the grass beside Flowers Drive into parking space.
The doors to the Chapel opened at 6:15, and within 20 minutes the 1,000 seats were filled. The line of people hoping to be admitted to the Chapel still stretched to James B. Duke’s statue when the doors closed and listeners were diverted to Page Auditorium. Several hundred chose to sit or stand on the lawn of the quad, somber and silent despite being outside, squarely facing the screen, speakers and chapel beyond. A handful of people lay in grass near the entrance of Page, watching the performance from the back of the screen.
“It’s better sitting outside,” a Durham boy said. He rolled in grass to shift his gaze from the front of the lighted chapel to the rising moon opposite. He came to the memorial concert, he explained, because “my great-grandmother was in that building (the World Trade Center).”
Tuesday, Sept. 25: “Christianity, War and Patriotism.”
|Streaming Video of this forum is available in RealVideo format.
Running time 1 hour 56 minutes.
Moderated by Dean Divinity School Dean and Professor of Theology L. Gregory Jones.
Reinhard Huetter, associate professor of Christian theology
Grant Wacker, associate professor of the history of religion in America
Amy Laura Hall, assistant professor of theological ethics.
Reinhard Huetter outlined three Christian responses to war.
The first, a crusade, envisions the ultimate confrontation between good and evil; it aims at salvation through violence, he said. The crusade response remains an ongoing temptation wherever Christians hold political power. Huetter said that in light of this, he was thankful that the Bush administration has turned away from crusade terminology.
The other responses, christological pacifism and the just war tradition, both emerged early in Christian tradition, he said. Christological pacifism, said Huetter, means that the task of sword bearing should not be the vocation of the followers of Jesus.
Huetter said that pacifists did not invent the current problem and therefore should not carry the burden of proof for being pacifists. On the other hand, he said, the church has allowed the just war tradition to languish. He described a just war as a last resort that seeks just order and peace as its ultimate goal and defines this goal in a politically measurable way, knowing that it is impossible “to make the world safe once and for all.”
Amy Laura Hall said, “Christians must not allow terrorists to take away our capacity to reflect critically on our country.”
She said that the song, “God Bless America,” can be appropriately sung in churches when interpreted as “a prayer that God would make our country more reflective of justice.” Flying the U.S. flag in churches is open to multiple interpretations and, while not necessarily idolatrous, she said, given our propensity toward idolatry, Christians should instead sing a prayer of blessing to God. She cited “This Is My Song” as a stirring song to bless a country that maintains a proper posture toward God as creator of all countries.
Historian Grant Wacker said he was “impressed by the degree of judiciousness of our government’s rhetoric” following Sept. 11.
Wacker said tension is constant as the country tries to maintain a balance between ideals and needs. An associate professor of the history of religion in America, Wacker noted that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was founded on the high ideals of Puritanism, yet lost sight of those ideals when it executed 20 people for witchcraft and on other occasions when it slaughtered American Indians. Early Quakers in Rhode Island, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also found that the need for civil order and protection made their pacifist and egalitarian ideals difficult to maintain.
Historians can explain such contradictory scenarios, he said, but the danger comes in legitimizing such actions through explanation. Those who see Sept. 11 as divine retribution for America’s wayward ways and those on the other end of the political spectrum who mask the anger and hatred that is driving terrorist actions have both failed to think of the difference between explanation and legitimization, said Wacker.
Monday, Sept. 24: “The New War on Terrorism: Initial Assessments.”
|Streaming Video of this forum is available in RealVideo format.
Running time 1 hour 36 minutes.
A standing-room-only crowd of more than 200 came to the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy to listen to panelists
John French, associate professor of history and an expert on police behavior and ideology
Bruce W. Jentleson, Sanford Institute director, professor of public policy studies and political science and former foreign policy adviser to former Vice President Al Gore
Robert O. Keohane, James B. Duke Professor of Political Science and a leading international relations scholar
Madeline Morris, law professor and director of the Duke/Geneva Institute in Transnational Law who has helped establish war tribunals in other war-torn nations.
Michael Munger, professor and chair of political science, moderated the panel.
The terrorist threat to the United States should be neither underestimated nor overestimated, Jentleson said. Instead, it must be understood and the United States must develop a multifaceted strategy that addresses both the immediate issue of the attacks and the longer-term foreign policy issues. The strategy must involve four elements: preparation, prevention, protection and punishment. “If this is going to be a long-term and systematic effort, as President Bush said, to thwart global terrorism, we need to prepare for it, domestically and diplomatically,” Jentleson said.
And, he noted, “We must not oppose a policy just because we did not or do not politically support the president.”
Audience members and panelists alike disagreed on how the United States should respond to the attacks. French cautioned against “embarking on an ill-defined and open-ended ‘war on terrorism,'” and instead recommended treating the attacks as “a law enforcement problem.”
Morris questioned that approach, noting that, “we have just completed prosecution” in the first World Trade Center bombing and few would consider that effort completely successful. “This is greater than criminal justice,” she said, adding there are both legal and practical problems in identifying, getting custody of and prosecuting alleged perpetrators in other countries.
Keohane emphasized that the United States has a clear moral right to self-defense, and a clear legal right to self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. charter. “Military force is not a strategy – but it may be an essential part of a strategy,” he said. The United States should build a broad coalition to focus on a “narrowly defined target – the bin Laden organization and the Taliban regime,” and it is “imperative that this struggle not be seen as the West vs. Islam or the Arab states.”
Wednesday, November 28: “After Sept. 11: Meeting the Terrorist Challenge”
In a New York City event attended by more than 300 Duke alumni, Bruce W. Jentleson, director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, and Christopher Schroeder, professor of law and public policy studies, discussed foreign policy and domestic legal issues raised by the attack. The event at HSBC Bank on 5th Avenue, courtesy of Leslie Bains, Institute Board of Visitors member and senior executive vice president of HSBC.
Thursday, January 17: “Congress 2002: The Economy, Religion and Politics, and the War on Terrorism”
Two members of North Carolina’s congressional delegation, Robin Hayes and David Price, discussed topics to be taken up by Congress in 2002 during a public forum moderated by Bruce W. Jentleson, director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy.
Hayes, a Republican who represents the state’s 8th congressional district, and Price, a Democrat and Duke faculty member who represents the state’s 4th district, touched on a wide range of issues, from Medicare and campaign finance to the nation’s response to the attacks of Sept. 11.
Monday, February 18: “U.S.-Saudi Relations Since Sept. 11”
Robert W. Jordan, U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said “the world has gotten a lot smaller for all of us” during a public lecture in the Fleishman Commons at the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy. “For the first time, people are paying a lot of attention to what’s going on in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
Jordan said the Saudis “were among the first to call” the United States, offering assistance after the terrorist attacks, including access to additional petroleum reserves to prevent any disruption in supply. He also emphasized the country’s strategic importance to the U.S., particularly in terms of military access to Saudi air space.
Jordan has several Duke ties: he received his bachelor’s degree in political science from the university, and his son, Peter, graduated from Duke in 2001 and is a Hart Fellow working with the Christian Children’s Fund in Kenya.
Friday, February 22: “America After Sept. 11: What Role Can You Play?”
Congressman Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY), accompanied by Duke alum Paul Brathwaite, who is policy director for the Congressional Black Caucus, spoke in the Fleishman Commons at the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy. The event was co-sponsored by the Institute’s Committee on Black Affairs and Duke’s Office of Federal Relations as part of the celebration of Black History Month.
“Terrorism is the ultimate expression of hopelessness … let us not despair in this time of war,” said Meeks.
He raised concerns about the Bush administration’s defense budget and “tax cuts to the rich,” and urged universities like Duke and public policy programs like the Terry Sanford Institute to be active and involved. Meeks described Black History Month as “an antidote to terrorism” because it is “predicated on hope, not hopelessness.”
Meeks, who represents the 6th District of New York, is a member of the Committee on Financial Services, and its subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, as well as the subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, and the subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. He also serves on the International Relations Committee and its subcommittee on Africa, and the subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific.
Tuesday, February 26: Speech by William Kristol
William Kristol, political commentator and editor of “The Weekly Standard,” spoke about the U.S. political climate after the Sept. 11 attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.
“Sept. 11 was the end of the ’90s and the beginning of a new era,” said Kristol, who is a former chief of staff for Vice President Dan Quayle and Secretary of Education William Bennett. “We can’t assume that the roles and habits we’ve gotten used to will continue in the next decade.”
Kristol said Bush had “risen to the challenge” and “grasped the nettle of the challenge for his generation” in his talk, which was sponsored by the Freeman Center for Jewish Life.
“[President Bush] laid out the Bush Doctrine,” said Kristol, whose daughter attends Duke. “It is a new doctrine in American policy. [We] won’t accept the world’s most dangerous regimes developing the world’s most dangerous weapons.” Kristol went on to dismiss the notion that American involvement in the Arab world was responsible for anti-Americanism.
“The thing that hurt us most in the Arab world was that we stopped the war [against Iraq],” he said. “We’d do much better in the Arab street if we are seen as a liberating force… . I would err on the side of being more aggressive, not less.”
Monday, March 4: “About the News: American Journalism in Peril”
Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert Kaiser, executive and associate editors of “The Washington Post,” discussed their new book and journalism since Sept. 11 in an event at the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy.
News coverage of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has been “the news media operating at its best,” said Downie. Such coverage, unfortunately, “is not typical of American media,” who often have “cynically underestimated America’s need for good journalism” in recent years, he said.
About 150 people attended the vent, co-sponsored by the Sanford Institute’s DeWitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism and the Regulator Bookshop. Sanford Institute Director Bruce W. Jentleson served as moderator.
Wednesday, March 27: “Ethics in Foreign Policy”
Jeremy Greenstock, British Ambassador to the United Nations, told more than 100 students and faculty at the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy that the United States had done a good job, to date, balancing absolute moral principles and political concerns in responding to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
“What is going on in Afghanistan is not reprisal, but prevention,” he told his audience.
President Bush’s labeling of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil” should be seen as an appropriate warning and was “a deliberate lever being pulled to underline a policy being advanced,” Greenstock added.
Tuesday, April 9: “Trans-Atlantic Relations After Sept. 11”
Karsten D. Voigt, the Federal Republic of Germany’s Coordinator of German-American Cooperation, met with students and Sanford Institute Media Fellows.
“For the U.S., September 11 … meant the definitive end of the myth of invulnerability,” he said. For the transatlantic community, “September 11 demonstrated that security issues will continue to play an important role in the Euro-Atlantic community.”
Voigt emphasized the importance of a strong European-North American partnership. “Only together can Europe and North America protect and defend our shared convictions – freedom, human rights and the rule of law – worldwide,” he said. “These are ultimately the values which form the foundation for peace and stability throughout the world.”
Tuesday, April 9: Open Forum at Exploris Museum
International journalists spoke about patriotism in the media in the aftermath of the events of September 11 as part of an open forum sponsored by Exploris, an interactive museum in Raleigh, N.C. The journalists, participating in the Media Fellows Program at the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy’s DeWitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism, discussed their views on how patriotism is expressed in their respective countries and how it relates to the identity of the journalist.
Panelists included media fellows Dieter Herrmann, editor and correspondent for Deutsche Welle TV in Berlin, Germany; Ariane Hildebrandt, television journalist in Berlin, Germany; Ray Cormier, travel editor for the New York Times; Amy Argetsigner, metro reporter for the Washington Post; and Charles Leonard, output editor for e.TV in Johannesburg, South Africa. Additional media fellows from Bosnia, Serbia, France, Germany and the U.S. also participated.
Thursday and Friday, April 11 and 12: “Security Challenges After September 11th National and International Perspectives”
CIA Deputy Director James Pavitt told a Duke University audience that the CIA had targeted Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorists for years and knew they were planning “a major attack,” but could not have prevented the devastating terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
“We never found the trusted intelligence that could have stopped the Sept. 11 attacks,” Pavitt said. “Nothing short of a hijacker turning himself in would have prevented it.”
Pavitt’s talk was part of a two-day conference on national security. Other speakers included: Joel H. Rosenthal, president of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs; Christopher Greenwood, professor of international law at the London School of Economics and Political Science; Bruce Jentleson, director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy; Steve D. Biddle, assistant professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Thomas Dowling, deputy director of the Office of Analysis for Near East and South Asia at the U.S. State Department; Christoph Heusgen, director of the policy unit in the Secretariat of the Council of the European Union; Christopher H. Schroeder, the Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law at Duke; history professor Richard H. Kohn, who chairs the Curriculum in Peace, War and Defense at UNC; and Louis D. Bilionis, the Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at UNC and North Carolina’s representative to the national ACLU.
Tuesday, April 16: “Crisis in the Middle East”
About 100 members of the Duke University faculty and religious community discussed the “Crisis in the Middle East” at a forum in the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy.
Moderator Larry Moneta, Vice President for Student Affairs, opened the discussion by noting that part of the university’s role is to “analyze, debate and educate.” Forum panelists were Bruce W. Jentleson; Ebrahim Moosa, associate research professor in the Department of Religion and co-director of the Center for the Study of Muslim Networks; Benjamin Miller, visiting professor in the Department of Political Science and an expert in international relations and security studies; Imam Abdul-Hafeez Waheed, the university’s Muslim campus minister; and Rabbi Bruce Bromberg Seltzer, from the Freeman Center for Jewish Life.
Seltzer and Waheed began their remarks with greetings of peace, encouraging members of the Duke community to grow and learn from each other. Professors Jentleson, Miller and Moosa addressed different aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including its history and its leaders, and U.S. foreign policy. Panelists and audience members disagreed frequently on how to characterize the issues, but several acknowledged a “common thread of humanity” that makes ending the violence and restarting the peace process critical both to the safety and security of the region and to that of the greater global community.