Charles Nailen/The Hoya
On Wednesday, students representing several campus organizations protested a possible war against Iraq by staging a “die-in” in Red Square. A corollary panel discussion was also held to debate the Iraqi issue that evening in the ICC.
At 12:45 p.m. several students began beating drums and buckets, and at 1 p.m. between 50 and 60 students fell to the ground and remained motionless for the next 20 minutes. National media, including representatives from CNN, The Washington Times, Reuters and the Associated Press, were on hand to cover the event.
The die-in, which was sponsored by the newly formed Georgetown Peace Action, Campus Greens, the Young Arab Leadership Alliance and the Muslim Students Association, was part of “No Attack Iraq” week, a week of events focused on mobilizing students against war. These events are being held in conjunction with “Human Rights Awareness Week.”
The three main goals of the protest were to “raise awareness, encourage people to rethink [President George W.] Bush’s foreign policy towards Iraq and to promote a more proactive campus culture,” Shadi Hamid (SFS ’05), a member of the Muslim Students Association and one of the coordinators of the event, said.
“We decided to do a die-in in order to catch people’s attention . we wanted a visual presentation,” Hamid said. “People were very curious about what we were doing.”
Organizers of the event stressed the symbolic importance of the action. “It represents how many people have died, are dying and will die as a direct result of U.S. war and U.S. sanctions.” Emil Totonchi (SFS ’06), a member of Georgetown Peace Action, said.
As the students lay “dead” on the ground, Totonchi used a microphone to broadcast their message to passing students. He began by inviting others to participate, announcing, “If you are against the war on Iraq, then please join us in dying-in. All you have to do is fall down.”
Totonchi went on to say that the purpose of the die-in was to “demonstrate that Iraqi civilians, or rather all human beings, are not collateral damage.”
He then gave various reasons why the U.S. should refrain from initiating a war with Iraq, calling attention to the possibility of numerous casualties on both sides, and warning of a possible Iraqi counterattack against Iran, Saudi Arabia or Israel.
Several spectators seemed to support the die-in. “It’s a good mobilization of students,” Martine Arbuthnott (COL ’03), who was not involved with the event’s organization, said. “I wish more people were out here.”
Others doubted the effectiveness of the approach. “It seems like the same collection of people are protesting everything,” Nathan Fennesey (COL ’04) said. “This happens all the time.”
Some students expressed a more critical reaction to the event. “I think it’s good that they are standing up for what they believe in,” Pat Vantrell (SFS ’03) said, “but no one is talking about the other side – the possibility of American casualties from weapons of mass destruction.”
Opponents of the movement felt the die-in misrepresented the issue of human rights with respect to Iraq. “Everyone seems to be focusing on possible human rights violations that might occur instead of focusing on the atrocities that occur every day under Saddam Hussein’s regime,” Vice Chairman of College Republicans Charles Eldridge (COL ’03) said.
College Republicans, which according to Eldridge is the only organization to date to come out in support of the Bush Administration’s policy toward Iraq, participated in “Human Rights Week” by hanging posters that highlighted the current Iraqi regime’s long record of human rights abuses.
Both the College Republicans and the participants in the die-in urged people to attend “Iraq: A Look at Both Sides,” a panel discussion which was held in the ICC Auditorium on Wednesday evening and included representatives from both sides of the issue. The panel was sponsored by several student organizations representing a wide variety of opinions on the issue. Christopher Joyner, professor of government and assistant director of undergraduate studies for the Government Department at Georgetown University, moderated the debate.
Nile Gardiner, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a supporter of U.S. military action in Iraq, was the first to speak. He began by documenting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s continuous efforts to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions. He also accused Iraq of harboring al-Qaeda fighters and Palestinian terrorists, and expressed the concern that Iraq, working in conjunction with Palestinian terrorists, may use weapons of mass destruction to “draw in Israel and neighboring Arab countries and foment a huge conflict in the Middle East.”
Gardiner went on to list several human rights abuses that have taken place under the current Iraqi regime. “It is our moral duty,” Gardiner argued, “to remove a brutal . evil Iraqi dictatorship.” He emphasized the importance of international cooperation in any military action.
Gardiner argued that a military attack on Iraq “would not be a war of Western imperialism or a grab for Iraqi oil. By liberating Iraq . [the U.S. and its allies] will be taking oil out of the clutches of the Iraqi elite and putting it into the hands of the Iraqi people.” The next speaker, Stephen Zunes, associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies program at the University of San Francisco, said that the “idea that Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat has been grossly exaggerated.” Zunes went on to argue that the current U.S. strategy of deterrence is sufficient and that Hussein will only use his weapons of mass destruction if he feels he has nothing to lose.
Zunes also addressed the issue of Iraq’s connection with terrorist groups. “Saddam Hussein has certainly directly supported international terrorism in the past, but these have been secular nationalists . [who] are mostly moribund at this point.” Zunes agreed that Iraq continues to support Palestinian suicide bombers, but he added that Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, has also provided financial support to such groups.
Zunes called for renewed inspections of Iraqi weapons facilities, and he described the idea of preemptive attack as “19th-century Hobbesian.”
The third speaker, Bernard Finel, executive director of the Center for Peace and Securities Studies at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, disagreed. “If [we] do not want to live in a world in which Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons .” he argued, “[we] have to be willing to go to war . because prior resolutions have not worked well and we are running out of time.” Finel developed several possible “bad scenarios” he believes might come about should the Iraqi regime develop nuclear weapons.
Finel doubted that a resumption of inspections would be enough to avert a crisis. “This is a textbook case of last recourse,” Finel said, referring to U.S. military action against Iraq.
Mark Lance, associate professor of philosophy and associate professor of justice and peace at Georgetown University, placed the issue of war with Iraq within the larger context of what he referred to as the “hypocrisy” of the United States.
He argued that the crimes of which Iraq is being accused of have been committed more often and to a greater extent by the United States and its allies. “The United States,” Lance argued, “has done more than any country historically to develop and spread technology of mass destruction . including nuclear [technology], biotechnology and nerve gas . including to Saddam long after his crimes had become known.”
Lance went on to criticize U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. “The primary U.S. ally in the Middle East is Israel . which possesses over 200 nuclear weapons and is violating more outstanding U.N. resolutions than any country in the world,” Lance said. The organizers of these events emphasized the importance of student awareness and encouraged students to take a more proactive stance toward the issue of war with Iraq. “Students have to be at the forefront of this new movement,” Hamid said, “this struggle for justice and peace.
