Harvard undergraduates from opposite ends of the political spectrum revealed a surprising level of agreement on U.S. foreign policy during a debate that marked the culmination of the student-organized International Relations Week 2007.

The Harvard College Democrats and the Harvard Republican Club (HRC) each fielded a two-member team that went head-to-head on Saturday, debating four topics united under the rubric of “Internationalism in U.S. Foreign Policy.”

The issues up for discussion included the role of the United Nations in U.S. foreign policy, the doctrine of preemption, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University, and the choice between engagement or containment.

Jonathan M. Padilla ’11 and Sahand Moarefy ’10, who represented the Dems in the debate, stressed the importance of diplomatic resolution to international conflicts.

“We have to work within multinational institutions like NATO and the U.N.,” Padilla said.

Moarefy too emphasized this approach, advocating for a thorough use of all diplomatic means before taking military action, including open dialogue with leaders such as Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

“The whole point of diplomacy is to address issues where we don’t see eye to eye,” Moarefy said. “We need to engage with our friends and our foes.”

The HRC debaters concurred with some of these principles.

“I agree whole-heartedly that we must have dialogue,” said HRC representative Tian Feng ’11.

The Republicans, however, contended that dialogue must be utilized only when the time is appropriate.

“Sitting around and waiting to be attacked can never be the policy of the United States,” said Feng’s partner, Mark A. Isaacson ’11.

Feng explained that the relative lack of bipartisan confrontation during the debate resulted from the common goal shared by the two parties.

“I think we’re striving for the same thing, and that is peace on the international ground,” she said after the debate.

The event marked the end of a week-long conference centered on the theme “Bridging the Global Divide: Inequality in International Affairs,” organized by the Harvard International Relations Council.

The conference also included panels and dinner discussions on issues such as climate change, the African war on terror, health care, and the media.