The war with Iraq was the timely and emotional topic of the first Hart House Forum held last Thursday evening.
The event, hosted by the Hart House Debates Committee, brought together a broad range of people with contrasting opinions about the impending war. A full room heard moderator and history professor Margaret MacMillan address the opening comment that “This could not be a more topical issue.” The speakers were asked whether or not they supported military intervention in Iraq.
Shahram Kholdi, a political science graduate student, spoke in favour of intervention in Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. “He must be condemned for his crimes against humanity.” He cited the persecution of Kurds and also stated that “Saddam has poisoned the marshes.”
Kholdi attacked what he saw as the hypocrisy of anti-war activists who accuse the U.S. of wrongdoing but who do not adequately criticize Saddam. “They themselves are no less hypocritical…Peace activists have shaken hands with Iraqi officials.” When asked directly if he supported U.S. intervention, Kholdi replied that he supported “intervention under the auspices of the U.N. but not the U.S.”
The legality of U.S. intervention was challenged by the next speaker, second year law student Graham Mayeda. “It is important to consider the importance of the law in international relations,” he noted. Mayeda discussed the doctrine of pre-emptive strike, and whether the U.S. had “a right to act if threat was not imminent.”
Quoting from the Nuremberg trial, Mayeda argued that the ruling did not pertain to the current situation. “Even if it is authorized by law…there is no long term plan in place…there could be Iraqi civil war.” Mayeda questioned “whether we should be setting a precedent for countries to intervene in the affairs of others.”
For some, however, the question of whether or not the war on Iraq was necessary was not as easy. “I find mysef in a difficult position,” said third speaker Nader Hashemi, “The moral lines are not clear.” He claimed “to agree broadly with the anti-war position,” but also felt that “Iraq is a genocidal regime, particularly on the Kurds and Marsh Arabs…the worse crime known to human kind.”
The central point for Hashemi was that “world order is not served by military action, but genocidal monsters cannot be kept in power.” Hashemi called himself “an agnostic on this question,” compared with the “religious dogma of the anti-war activists.” As for intervention, Hashemi said that “We have been focusing too much on possible American motives…there possibly may be positive consequences given the brutal nature of the tyranny that rules.”
When the debate was opened to the floor there were many eager to give their opinions. The head of the Arab Students’ Association stated that America was using an “Arab façade to make sure oil flows.” He cited racism as the reason for “believing that Arabs need help,” adding “Arabs can take care of themselves,” and noting that “We should be spared from the horrors of American imperialism.”
A representative from the Hart House Interfaith dialogue asked why Saddam could not be tried in an international court for crimes against humanity. She felt that everyone was essentially in agreement on Hussein’s human rights abuses, suggesting: “Let’s not be divided on something we feel the same about.”
Many students felt that the threat Hussein poses to the rest of the world is too great to ignore. A student from Israel said that, “saying no to war is gambling the lives of people in the Middle East.” Another student claimed that “Saddam Hussein is bent on destroying America and the West…he is attempting to unite the Arab world against the rest.” He referred to the remembrance wall next to Hart House and said that “the longer we wait, the longer we have to chisel our names into granite.”
A couple of students expressed the difficulty of relating to war in peaceful countries like Canada. One student claimed that despite this difficulty we must act with the U.S. because of our close ties and because “we don’t want a chemical attack in the U.S.”
Others felt that the potential loss of life in Iraq could not be justified. “It is ludicrous to speak of humanitarian intervention when speaking about the killing of millions of people,” commented one student.
Emotions ran high when a second year political science student said he supported an intervention by the U.S. because the “UN has shown itself to be weak and effeminate.” Kholdi intervened after a speech by a student OCAP member to ask that language be toned down after the student had used the term “capitalist bastard” in reference to an American politician.
MacMillan replied that she “found the proceedings to be well within the level of civility,” although she suggested that the description be reworded.
