Where I Stand — Rebecca Hewitt: World-class discussion

Friday, Dec. 22, 2000 | 11:01 a.m.

Editor's note: More than 850 juniors and seniors from area high schools participated in the 45th annual Sun Youth Forum Nov. 21 at the Las Vegas Convention Center. Students were divided into discussion groups on seven selected topics. Rebecca Hewitt of Green Valley High School tells of her group's opinions on "Around the World."

PICTURE A ROOM occupied by approximately 30 high school students from all walks of life giving their input on what should be done to resolve certain world issues. It is a sample representation of how the youth in the greater Las Vegas area and around the country feel about the United States' role in foreign affairs and the complex problems that plague the world.

Because the group was examining controversial issues, ranging from the U.S. role in the Middle East to what should be done about the rain forests, it was fortunate to have a majority of centrists sprinkled in with a few strict pragmatists and some head-strong humanitarians.

There seemed to be a three-way split on what should be done in the Middle East. The first course of action was to stay involved; some students felt that without U.S. support and intervention the Middle East would fall apart because no one else would be there to promote peace talks. The second point of view was that the United States has already done enough and that it is time to step out; there is no way we can help solve problems in the Middle East. We have already tried to be the mediators of peace talks and it was not successful. The third and most cynical point of view was voiced from those disenchanted with the reason they felt the United States is even involved in the Middle East -- for our own best interests. They felt that America's capitalistic society will only take action when it benefits the United States.

How to combat terrorism caused less of a divide in the discussion group. Although certain students agreed with "an eye for an eye" concept, the majority thought that retaliating after a terrorist attack would put this nation on the same level as the terrorists. How could bombing a city of innocent civilians result in something positive? We felt that because terrorists don't follow international laws, the only ways to combat terrorism are through special intelligence agencies that specialize in this area of crime, and to try to enforce world law by putting pressure on countries harboring terrorists with trade sanctions and related measures.

There was a brief discussion on India and Pakistan. It was agreed that when nuclear weapons come into play something must be done. The fact that this is another religious war complicates how the United States should be involved, but because testing of nuclear weapons has taken place, many people felt that the United States should play the role of world police.

We discussed what the U.S. role in world affairs should be in general. We agreed that the United States is a superpower; some pointed out that so are England and France, but we couldn't decide what our responsibilities were. Some felt that we should help troubled economies in hopes that they would become democratic capitalistic nations like ours. Others argued that not everyone wants to be like the United States and that we should implement programs to help needy countries get on their feet again by useful humanitarian efforts. Others felt it isn't our role as a nation to help everyone forever, and maybe war is the answer.

Countries fighting battles against nature are fighting a harder war than those fighting against man. In Africa up to 50 percent of the population in some areas is infected with HIV. In the beginning some thought that with this disease in epidemic proportions those contaminated should be quarantined. That idea was rejected when advocates realized that this is inhumane and unnecessary. With a disease such as HIV, education is the only way to start prevention, even though education so far has not shown measurable results. This is because new information doesn't seem to work well within the cultural structure of some African societies.

Another battle against nature is taking place in those countries that have rain forests. Every student wanted to help by either promoting organizations to save the rain forests, giving money to the countries or, as one student said, just buying the rain forests and not letting anyone destroy them. The last idea was a little controversial. Again, most of the group felt that the United States should take a stand on these issues and be a type of guardian.

The last topic was our stance on trading with China. One side opposed trading with China because of its human rights violations. The other saw it as creating jobs for Chinese citizens and therefore helping the people. Because some students felt it was wrong to impose our type of society on others, it was decided that it would be best if we introduced our way to China and let the country decide what is best for its people.

Overall, most students were keen on open trade. NAFTA is a good thing because it creates more jobs and more trade in the long run. On these two trade issues, as on most issues, the group seemed to want to help other countries, but not be overbearing. Students wanted to make sure these actions benefited the United States in the long run.

Our discussion group was characterized by a difference of opinion on almost every topic. This is why we came to the Sun Youth Forum -- to learn from others and to try and see situations from a different perspective. There was a consensus of optimism for the resolution of conflicts around the world.