Schedule
Justice or Security: Rethinking Global Priorities
April 7-9, 2025
Can states maximize national security without compromising migrants’ rights?
In an era of heightened security concerns and increasing migration, nations are challenged to balance safeguarding their security interests with ensuring fair and equitable treatment of migrants. This debate explores the tension states confront when it comes to balance at the border, exploring the friction between strict immigration policies and the potential for discrimination, detention, and violations of migrants’ rights.
Andrea Flores and Dr. Viktor Marsai
Moderated by:
Andrea Flores
Andrea Flores is the Vice President of Immigration Policy and Campaigns at FWD.us, a bipartisan organization based in Washington, D.C., dedicated to reforming the U.S. immigration system. At FWD.us, she leads policy development and advocacy efforts to expand protections for immigrants, improve pathways to citizenship, and promote humane border policies. She previously served as Chief Counsel to Senator Robert Menendez and held roles at the National Security Council, the ACLU, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Dr. Viktor Marsai
Dr. Viktor Marsai is the Director of the Migration Research Institute in Budapest, Hungary, and a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. From 2010 to 2011, he served at Hungary’s Ministry of Defense before transitioning to academia, where he lectured at the National University of Public Service from 2012 to 2016. A recipient of the János Bolyai Research Scholarship, Marsai specialized in African migration trends and their security implications. His research in the U.S. examined American and European migration policies, with a focus on how “gatekeeper countries” mitigate illegal migration.
To achieve a stable international community, should we reduce the global power gap or preserve the status quo?
Is global stability best achieved by challenging inequality or maintaining the current balance of power? As rising nations demand influence and established powers resist change, the global order faces a critical dilemma. Reducing the power gap could foster equity but risk instability, while preserving the status quo may sustain order yet fuel resentment. The debate aims to explore the tension between justice and pragmatism in international relations.
Amb. Micheal McFaul and Dr. Syed Mansoob Murshed
Moderated by:
Amb. Micheal McFaul
Ambassador Michael McFaul is the Director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University in Stanford, California, where he also serves as the Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies in the Department of Political Science, and as a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014 and was a key architect of President Barack Obama’s “Russian reset” policy. Ambassador McFaul’s extensive experience in U.S.-Russia relations and his advocacy for a liberal international order make him a compelling voice in support of preserving the current global power structure.
Dr. Syed Mansoob Murshed

Syed Mansoob Murshed is a Professor of the Economics of Peace and Conflict at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. A former holder of the Prince Claus Chair, Murshed has conducted and published extensive research on development, globalisation and conflict / post-conflict reconstruction. Murshed is a proponent of reducing the global gap; in his arguments he critiques the current strategy of containment and links the rising inequalities to the resurgence of nationalism, and more in marginalized regions. Additionally, he points out a democratic deficit in the current global order, along with calling for the reformation of current global institutions.
Is the price that developing countries pay in sovereignty worth the benefits they receive from foreign aid?
This debate challenges core assumptions about foreign aid and national sovereignty in developing countries, weighing economic benefits against potential limits on autonomy. While some nations use aid for progress, others remain trapped in dependency, making this issue critical for policymakers, donors, and development practitioners. Their decisions shape economic trajectories, institutions, and global power dynamics for generations.
Dr. Kenneth Kalu and Dr. Alfredo Burlando
Moderated by:
Dr. Kenneth Kalu

Dr. Kenneth Kalu is Associate Professor in Global Management Studies at the Ted Rogers School of Management in Toronto, Canada. With his expertise on the nature and evolution of economic and political institutions in developing countries, Dr. Kalu analyzes how economic and political institutions shape and are shaped by the business environment in Africa’s emerging markets. Prior to returning to academia, Dr. Kalu held senior executive positions in the public and private sectors in Canada and overseas, including Group Head of Economic and Business Intelligence, and later a Relationship Director at the United Bank for Africa (UBA). From UBA, he joined the Federal Civil Service where he was Deputy Director of Finance. He is a regular commentator on Africa’s economy and institutions, foreign aid, foreign direct investment, and China’s economic partnerships with Africa. Dr. Kalu brings a nuanced perspective of the hidden costs of foreign financial aid.
Dr. Alfredo Burlando
Alfredo Burlando is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon and an affiliate of both the Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA) and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL). His research focuses on financial inclusion in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, examining the impact of digital microcredit, savings groups, and financial services digitization. Burlando also explores the ethical conduct of randomized trials in Africa and the influence of political power structures on financial inclusion.
After a conflict, is long term peace more achievable through post-conflict reconciliation or through a total defeat of one side?
This debate question challenges fundamental assumptions about how lasting peace is best achieved, whether through the absolute defeat of an adversary or through reconciliation. Historically, conflicts have ended through both means with varying levels of success, making the question deeply relevant to modern security and peacebuilding efforts. Understanding this issue is crucial for policymakers, military strategists, and peacebuilders, as their choices in post-conflict settings shape the stability and justice of societies for generations to come.
Susan Hayward and Dr. John Nagl
Moderated by:
Rev. Susan Hayward

Susan Hayward is a research fellow at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs in Washington D.C. She also serves as a Transitional Associate Minister for Justice Organizing and Adult Faith Formation at the Creekside United Church of Christ in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her two decades of experience in peace building and interfaith dialogue are highlighted by her work as the UN High Commissioner and lead of the Religion and Inclusive Societies program at the U.S. Institute of Peace, focusing on conflict zones in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Colombia and Iraq. Her firsthand experience with global peace building through religion demonstrates how faith can transform violence and foster lasting peace.
Dr. John Nagl

Dr. John Nagl is a Professor of Warfighting Studies in the Department of Military Strategy, Planning, and Operations at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. A retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. He is the former president of the Center for a New American Security and former headmaster of The Haverford School. Upon retirement from the Army, Nagl served as a Senior Fellow and later as the President of the Center for a New American Security and as a member of the Defense Policy Board and the Reserve Forces Policy Board. Nagl is a recognized expert in counterinsurgency who served in the United States Army, where he participated in both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, serving in combat as part of armored tank units. He currently serves as a Professorial Lecturer at George Washington University, teaching a Masters’ degree course on Special Forces and Irregular Warfare.
Is war an advantage or hindrance in promoting national interests?
This debate question examines whether war serves as a means to pursue national interests or if it ultimately hinders them. War can be viewed as both a successful and unsuccessful strategy for achieving objectives like territorial expansion, resource control, or increased power. Historically, wars have reshaped international power dynamics, and transformed the global community. This issue is significant for policymakers, military leaders, and diplomats, as decisions regarding the use of force can impact the future of global peace and stability.
Brent Sadler and Dr. David Vine
Moderated by:
Dr. Brent Sadler

Brent Sadler is a Senior Research Fellow for Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. A retired U.S. Navy Captain, he served for 26 years as a nuclear-powered submarine officer and held key positions such as Senior Defense Official and Naval Attaché in Malaysia, Director of Maritime Strategy and Policy at U.S. Pacific Command, and Special Advisor to the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command in Tokyo. He further shaped U.S. naval strategy by establishing the Navy Asia Pacific Advisory Group in 2011 and later contributing to the Defense Department’s Third Offset while serving on the Chief of Naval Operations’ staff.
Dr. David Vine

International Affairs is located in John R. Howard Hall on the Undergraduate Campus.
MSC: 36
email iaffairs@lclark.edu
voice 503-768-7630
Chair Bob Mandel
International Affairs
Lewis & Clark
615 S. Palatine Hill Road
Portland OR 97219