| Calvin divided over possibility of war
By Chris Wenstrom
Assistant News Editor
With the war in Iraq seeming to be inevitable, sides have been drawn between pro-war “hawks” and peace-seeking “doves” among students and staff. There are a few student organizations in existence on campus, Social Justice Committee (SJC), Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) and PAX, which are focusing on the antiwar movement.
On Wednesday, the three student organizations were brought together at a table in Johnny’s to hand out antiwar material with the help of senior Jimmy Osborn. The reason for the collaboration of these groups, according to Osborn, was a sense of urgency and a need to unify group efforts in order to get more information out to students. Speaking on the issue of war with Iraq, Osborn said, “We need to start worrying about humanitarian issues and the rights of people, and if we start asking those questions, then there is obvious concerns about justification of a war.”
Osborn agrees that the Iraqi people are being oppressed and should be liberated, but he thinks that when looking at the history of the United States regarding its policies and actions in the Middle East, there is a lack of credibility.
“Throughout the relations with Iraq they [the U.S. Government] have used the pretext of liberation, but the results have been exactly the opposite-- the killing of millions of Iraqis,” he said. “The U.S. foreign policy regarding Iraq over the last 12 years, including the sanctions, have done nothing but hurt innocent people and strengthen Saddam Hussein’s power.”
Osborn added that another problem with the war with Iraq is a lack of evidence to support a military engagement. In response to the question, “Do you foresee any situation in which war, with proper evidence of Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction, would be appropriate?”, Osborn said that Christians cannot advocate any form of war.
Mark Schemper of the SJC said the goal of that group is to prompt discussion to get students to make informed decisions regarding a war with Iraq. Schemper also said the vast majority of SJC’s members took an antiwar stance on this issue.
Case Lettinga of PAX said, “PAX is simply a group of people who are committed to being active peacemakers. We are not a pacifist group. We believe that Christ calls us to know and live the biblical way of peace, to share this understanding with our world, to pray for the state of affairs of our world, to take actions that bring attention to injustice, to care for the ‘least among us’ by advocating in their names and to work for the biblical vision of peace and justice.”
The three groups will be manning a table in Johnny’s through this week and next, handing out informational flyers and signing a petition.
Jeff Arnson, a junior political science major, said his position is “pro-involvement and U.S. intervention in Iraq. By pro-involvement I mean both military presence and removing sanctions in order to improve the situation for the civilians.”
“Anytime you go to war or send troops to a country civilian casualties is a risk,” he said. “But I think the leaders of the United States have made it clear that Saddam Hussein has killed his own people, and his dictatorship threatens his own civilians. The benefits of war would outweigh the risks of civilian loss.”
In response to the comment of a lack of evidence, Arnson said, “I trust our leaders. They wouldn’t lie about the information they have, or present lies to the United Nations.”
Arnson added, “The national government’s responsibility is to protect its people, and I think the United States is afraid, rightly so, of the loss of U.S. life if we don’t go to war. Unilateral involvement would be abdicated with the proper evidence. The government would be acting in the best interest of the people.”
Freshmen Emily Goedegebuure and Marie De Haan take the pro-war position. They felt that if the United States does nothing in response to terrorist attacks, the situation will simply escalate. Goedegebuure and De Haan agreed that the risk of civilian casualties is outweighed by the necessity to actively engage in the increasingly hostile situation in Iraq. Because the military targets military sites only and attempts to avoid civilian areas, war would be the best option to deal with Iraq.
Philosophy Professor Lee Hardy said that there was not enough compelling evidence at this time for him to support a war against Iraq.
Philosophy Professor John Hare agreed that there was not enough evidence at this time. Although Hare went on to say that even with the evidence that would justify war, he still would not support U.S. unilateral involvement with Iraq. Hare felt that the United Nations would be the better choice for dealing with Iraq.
One of the lecturers at this year’s January Series, Charles Krauthammer, spoke on this particular issue, which incited controversy to the point of students yelling out comments during the question and answer portion. Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize- winning syndicated columnist.
Krauthammer said that this subject is a question of deterrence or preemption and one cannot rely on deterrence to keep safe. People who want to live with deterrence are living in a dream world. He said that if one uses logic like deterrence, then super deterrence, where everyone is given nuclear weapons, is the only option.
Krauthammer also said pacification does not work, recalling the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and other terrorist attacks. He said that the policy of the United States treating these terrorist attacks, such as the one on the USS Kohl, not as military issues but as justice issues has lead to only more attacks. The use of the FBI and CIA has proven inadequate in dealing with terrorists of this nature. And it was dealing with these attacks as issues of justice rather than the military, working in a pacifist manner, which did not stop Sept. 11.
Tuesday evening history Professor Bert de Vries spoke in Schultze-Eldersveld with respect to the issue of war on Iraq. De Vries’ credibility on the subject derives from his extensive traveling to the Middle East, mainly Oman and Jerusalem, as well as his involvement and understanding of the culture of the region. De Vries just returned from the Middle East.
He has worked primarily on archaeological sites but is now working in developmental work in the West Bank in hopes of making peace with people by working alongside them.
In response to Krauthammer’s speech, de Vries said, “According to Krauthammer, justice is not working, so we should just give up on it. If we use the preemptive method proposed by him, we should just blow up anyone we think might be a threat, rather than using justice.”
De Vries is vehemently against any war with Iraq in any case. He declares that Iraq provides no threat to its neighbors or to the United States. He acknowledges that Saddam Hussein is an evil oppressive dictator, but he thinks that “war will not solve anything, it will simply kill thousands more of innocent civilians. If we truly want to improve Iraq, we must work collaboratively with the government and its people. The democratization of the Middle East must come from within as proven with the efforts in India as it took men like Gandhi to bring about change. This can’t simply be forced on them [Iraq].”
During his travels throughout the Middle East, de Vries spends a great deal of time in taxis and is able to ask the drivers of all different backgrounds and races their feelings on world affairs, specifically their views on the United States. He said the general reaction of all the people he has spoken to has been, “We love America and Americans, but why do they have these policies to attack Arabs?”
|
