Thursday, September 11

Previous Issues

Follow us on Instagram
Try our free mini crossword
Subscribe to the newsletter
Download the app

Global Issues Forum hosts discussion on possible outcomes of war with Iraq

Last night, more than 200 students, faculty and members of the University community filled 302 Frist Campus Center to capacity, coming to participate in a heated debate on the question "War in Iraq?" The Global Issues Forum, a student organization that seeks to enhance the understanding of global affairs on campus, sponsored the event.

Speaking on the panel were Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and practice; Jeffrey Herbst, chair of the politics department; Jack Matlock, visiting professor and lecturer of public and international affairs; and Abdeslam Maghraoui, director of Al-Madina: Agenda for Democratic Change in the Middle East and North Africa.

ADVERTISEMENT

"We felt that it was the most pertinent issue in the country, if not the world," said Taufiq Rahim '04, president of the forum.

The group tried to bring in a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and viewpoints, Rahim said, including experts in international law and specialists in regard to the Middle East.

Falk opened the panel discussion urging against war with Iraq. He said he believes war against Iraq would be an "unnecessary and dangerous war, as well as it being inconsistent, a violation of international law."

He believes that Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, would not endanger itself by harboring terrorists, and it would only become dangerous if attacked. In short, the U.S. government would create the very situation it means to prevent.

Also, Falk warned of an encroachment upon the Constitution. The separation of powers is being ignored if the United States goes to war at the insistence of only the executive branch of government, he said.

In contrast to Falk, Herbst said the U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring weapons inspections must be enforced in Iraq by means of war.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Everything else has failed —diplomacy, carrots and sticks," Herbst said. In order to enforce the U.N. resolutions, military action must be taken.

However, if the resolutions are duly enforced, he does not believe there is enough rationale for regime change in Iraq.

Matlock agreed with Herbst that "Iraq is in clear violation of U.N. resolutions, and for the credibility of the U.N., the U.N. should be willing to enforce these resolutions." In addition, he said regime change in Iraq is an absolute necessity.

"To enforce the resolutions is the same as regime change, because they're not going to be enforced if [Saddam] Hussein is in charge," Matlock said.

Subscribe
Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Bringing the discussion full circle, Maghraoui provided a three-part argument against war on Iraq.

"Historically, the results of war in the region have been counterproductive and in the long run, disastrous," he said. Using several examples of fruitful relations created through peaceful processes, he argued that the idea that decisive military action would bring peace to the region was untenable.

Also, Maghraoui raised the issue of credibility regarding current U.S. policy in the Middle East. Previous policy in the area was never based on democratic ideals, but rather on political and economic alliances, he said.

Finally, Maghraroui asked whether the United States would be committed to stabilizing Iraq if it succeeded in changing the regime.

"Opposing the war does not mean supporting the dictatorial regime in Iraq, but I believe that there are some hard issues we must confront," he concluded.