Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 16, No. 17. September 11, 1952

Vics Bludgeon Descends — America's First Defeat — Milburn and Curtin Triumph

Vics Bludgeon Descends

America's First Defeat

Milburn and Curtin Triumph

Victoria became the first College to defeat the visiting American debaters when they soundly trounced them on the topic of America's foreign policy. The "heavy bludgeon" of Victoria College debating put the final result out of all doubt. The home debaters, J. D. Milburn and F. L Curtin, seemed to possess more knowledge of U.S.A.'s foreign policies than did the Americans, D. L Hunter and H. A. Kiker.

D. L. Hunter

D. L. Hunter

Before an audience of over two hundred people, including the American Cultural Attache and many members of the College staff and N.Z.U.S.A., the Americans spoke with an assurance expected from them, and although David Hunter apologised in advance for any confusion of New Zealand and Australian audiences as a result of their successful tour of Australia the audience was impressed with their sure command of phrase. David Lee Hunter is a twenty-three-year-otd Californian with a B.A. in Political Science now studying law. He is on his way to Europe (by rather a devious route) to take up a Rotary Foundation Fellowship at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva. His team-mate, Henry A. Kiker, Junior, also twenty-three years old and a law student, has a B.A. in History from the University of Arizona. The two New Zealand debaters are well known to university audiences and are the equal of the finest ever produced at Victoria.

The chairman, Mr. M. J. O'Brien, explained that this was the first American touring debating team since 1938. This team had been selected on a nationwide basis by the Institute of International Education. The speakers were on an equal footing as this was the first time that the subject, "That This House Considers the Prestent Foreign Policies of the United States With Favour," had been debated by the Americans.

David Hunter commenced for the affirmative. The foreign policy of America was fairly apparent; he could see what it was and agree with it (even though he was a Republican). The main facet of American foreign policy was aid to foreign countries; America in this was motivated by humanitarian impulses. She was also interested in mutual security and so she aided those nations upon which she could depend the most in time of crisis. America urged the enactment of regional defence pacts, such as the North Atlantic Pact and ANZUS. America had supported the "Truman Doctrine" in connection with Turkey and Greece and generally aimed at the prevention of armed minorities gaining domination in friendly countries. She fostered a policy of exchange of technical experts and knowledge. In fact America's policy was best summarised in the word "co-operation."

China Policy

Jim Milburn, leading for the negative, noted the conflict between the two vital phases of American ex[unclear: pansionism], altruism and idealism and the old isolationism, defeated by history, now manifesting itself in active power-seeking. The active presecution of the present American policy was a threat to world peace and a threat to the stability of the British Commonwealth. In China her refusal to arbitrate and her support given to the Nationalist Government, known to be the most corrupt government in Asia, were both due not to a good foreign policy but to the strong Kuomintang policy in America. The American action in Korea—and it was American and not U.N.—was merely a part of the China policy and not an altruistic attempt to safeguard democracy in Korea.

Henry Kiker, replying and continuing the constructive case for the affirmative, developed his argument on the line that the motive behind the American foreign policies is the security of world peace.

Hamlet Resurrected

Frank Curtin commenced his case with, "The spectre of Red Imperialism has haunted the ramparts of American foreign policy like Hamlet's father's ghost—and like Hamlet America doesn't know its own mind." It had changed its policy many times and was trying to convince the other nations that only two things could save the world—an act of God, and/ or an act of U.S.A. He noted instances of the crippling economic effect of U.S.A. policy, and the deleterious effect on Russia of the rearmament of Western Germany.

Having each spoken, the speakers were allowed five minutes to answer and attack specifically the other speakers' debates. Milburn in a devastating well-documented reply really put the result out of doubt. He finished by leaving the audience with these words spoken by Admiral Matthews, Secretary of the U.S. Navy in 1950—"We should institute a war to ensure co-operation for peace." Hunter in reply said that the negative were mistaken if they thought that thousands of American soldiers were dying in Korea just to please the Kuomintang lobby. To that, Curtin replied that even if America did not want a war—and the negative maintained that they did—nevertheless, the American foreign policy was leading to it. "Even today we do not know whether Hamlet was made or pretending to be mad, but the result was just the same." Kiker replied by reiterating many of the affirmative's arguments and did not affect the result which was by this time well and truly inevitable. A change of opinion poll was held which resulted in 36 points for the Americans and 61 for the New Zealanders. A straight vote resutled in 61 votes for the Americans and 149 for the New Zealanders.

J. D. Milburn

J. D. Milburn

F. L. Curtin

F. L. Curtin

Evening Post Photo