|
You are viewing
Volume 40, Issue 10.
February 25, 2003
To return to the current issue please
click here.
|
 |
MCC professors discuss
Iraq crisis
By Andrew James
Mesa Legend
The panel consisted of Brian Dille, who holds a doctorate in political
science, David Yount, Barry Vaughan, and Ann Mahoney, all professors in
the department of philosophy and religious studies.
The two-hour discussion began with each professor stating his research
and opinions on the possible war in Iraq and was then followed by an open
forum/discussion from the audience.
Each panelist addressed different issues on the situation in Iraq and
the U.S.’s position in global relations. Vaughan began the discussion
with an overview of Just Cause and Just Engagement, leading into Right
Cause, Right Authority, and Right Intent. Vaughan discussed the criteria
for Just Cause in an offensive war, in which case a nation must consider
the possible grievances and the probability of success with going to war.
In the case of an attack, the aggressor is the one who is at fault, and
the defending country has every right to fight back.
In this case, the U.S. would be unjustified in starting a war on Iraq.
As far as the question, “Is there a right cause, authority or intent
to attack Iraq?” Vaughan gave evidence that there is no such justification
for a war on Iraq.
“To answer the question ‘Would it be morally justified for the
United States to declare a war on Iraq at this time?’ considering
the principles of Right cause, Right Authority and Right Intention, I
believe that we must answer, no,” Vaughan argued.
The discussion then turned to Dille, who as a political science professor
focused on the government perspective and outlined the three different
interactions the U.S. is dealing with in this pre-war era. The three interactions
include the United States with Iraq, the U.S. with their allies, and the
Bush administration with its Domestic Stakeholders.
Dille outlined reasons why the Bush administration has given aid to other
countries, such as Russia and Turkey, to help build our alliance in case
of future strife with opposing countries like Iraq.
His main focus was on the U.S./Iraq interaction with coercive diplomacy.
“It is my contention that we are using a Coercive Diplomacy strategy,
defined as, ‘using threat of force to extort or compel to get (Iraq)
to do something that they would not do voluntarily,” Dille said.
“It is not aggression or force.”
Then Yount argued against a war on Iraq, citing that it violates the U.S.
Constitution, which states that international treaties are the “supreme
law of the land,” and war violates the United Nations Charter, whose
aim is to “develop friendly relations and achieve international cooperation
with respect to human rights.”
Yount also discussed the change in relations with Saddam Hussein over
the past twenty years.
In 1989, George Bush Sr. issued loans to Hussein “to establish a
better position with Iraq, regarding its human rights issues.”
Relations that worsened with the Gulf War are continuing to decline with
talks of another war on Iraq.
Finally, Mahoney addressed the underlying issues between the U.S. and
Middle East. She also discussed the financial strain a war would cause
on the U.S.
“I have yet to hear a journalist explore the reasons why (Middle
Easterners) hate us,” Mahoney said. “It would be more important
to at least find out why we’re hated before we go in and start killing.
How much do we really know about those people? And what do they know about
us? There’s a lot of stereotypes on both sides.”
The panel was then opened up to a discussion and question forum from the
audience.
Students, teachers, and spectators asked the panel to further explain
their positions, what they can do to prevent war and what they thought
would come of a war with Iraq.
“It was great to have people agree and disagree and exchange their
views,” geography teacher, Steve Bass, said. “I came to understand
some of the diplomatic actions of the Bush administration and the perspectives
of the panelists. The different points of view were interesting.”
The panel’s consensus seemed to be anti-war.
“The point of the panel was to inform and educate, not to sway so
much as to get people to critically think about these issues,” said
moderator Debra J. Campbell, Department Chair for philosophy and religious
studies. “It was hard to find someone in the MCC community on short
notice who was prepared to give a pro-war view.”
The panel was put on by the non-profit Center for Global Tolerance and
Engagement, whose mission statement is, “to help foster a sustainable
environment for global tolerance and engagement in our pluralistic world
and to promote understanding of different world views on religion and
ethics.”
“When you have scholars dedicated to trying to get the real reasons
behind things, and who are practiced in research, it’s good to get
their expertise,” Campbell said of the panel.
The Center also hosted a forum titled, “Living, Working, and Traveling
in Several Muslim Cultures” by Cathy DellaPenta on Feb. 20.
The center will sponsor several multi-cultural events such as public talks
and musical performances and a possible follow-up to the discussion on
the war with Iraq.
“We are open to anything in line with our mission statement,”
said Campbell.
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
|
|
|
