A blog post by Ginerva Grant

In Morality, Research, and Debate, Ginerva Grant shares her experience debating the use of cluster bombs in Ukraine, balancing research and moral dilemmas while representing the ‘pro’ side. The post delves into the emotional and intellectual challenges of debating such a sensitive topic, exploring how academic rigor intersects with ethical dilemmas.

---

In my capacity as representative for the Institute for Diplomacy and International Affairs, my fellow peers and I put on a parliamentary-style debate which asked the question ‘would you support the use of cluster bombs in the conflict in Ukraine by the Ukrainian government?’

For those unaware, cluster bombs are a type of cluster munitions that the United States announced they were sending to Ukraine last July as part of a new aid package. These munitions are banned in over 100 countries for their high failure rate and violent dispersal.

I don’t have a formal background in international relations—my knowledge comes mainly from news, TV shows, books, and some postgraduate work I’ve done in the field. As one of the selected debaters for the ‘pro’ side, I needed to conduct thorough research, so I used a variety of methods. I started by recalling key news stories, then moved on to opinion pieces, academic literature, and NGO websites. I even came across a technical guide on cluster munitions during my research!

As I sifted through articles to shape my arguments, one persistent thought kept intruding: “all wars are crimes.” I recognized it immediately—a line from The West Wing, an American TV series by Aaron Sorkin, where the White House Chief of Staff reflects on how bombing a military target resulted in the deaths of 11 civilians.

I’d search for counterarguments on discrepancies in failure rates, and there it was, whispering, “all wars are crimes.” As I explained inefficiencies in unitary munitions or supply shortages, it would tap me on the shoulder, hinting at something deeper. Was it meant to absolve me? After all, wars are inherently lose-lose, merely deciding who loses more. Or was it a reminder not to be too casual in my approach? My arguments seemed so rational and clear that, by the end of my research, the opposing side felt reduced to mere moral equivocations.

My thoughts were so muddied by the end that only after a tea break was I able to right the ship and remember, mine was not to question the right or the wrong of it but to argue my side the best, to foresee all possible counters and be ready to confidently address the opposition with, ‘this is why you are wrong’. So, I pressed on, nose to the grindstone. Despite presenting a well-structured argument for the pro side, the result

was inconclusive. Even though our case was stronger, the audience still refused to approve the use of cluster munitions in any form.

Following the debate I briefly interviewed my colleagues on (1) how they felt about cluster bombing prior to their research (2) whether emotions played a role in the way they researched or the formation of their arguments (3) and if the debate changed their stance on cluster munitions. Both members of the con team were against cluster bombs prior to the debate and their stances did not change at its conclusion, though both believe their research was emotionally driven, one felt they maintained their rationality. My partner and I on the pro side entered the debate slightly left of neutral and exited it the same, though while my partner found his approach to be evenly rational, I found my own research to be a tumultuous trip between pragmatism and guilt.

Dramatic, right?

It was merely a debate over a decision that had been taken months ago that no one in that room had the power to influence.

And yet…

We don’t have the decision-making power, so we do this instead. Argue and debate because we all have opinions and, for an academic especially, nothing is better than someone with a well-argued and well-reasoned opinion. Arguing our point well is what we are trained to do, after all. So, when I took the stage on Thursday the 15th of February, almost two years into the war in Ukraine, I argued to win. Because of course they had a right to use cluster munitions, they were deployed on their own land, no party involved was or is a member of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, ‘armchair’ assessments are superfluous, these munitions are important for tactical advancement-

And on and on it goes.

But whether it is civilians or soldiers that are dying, now or in the future, because of these munitions’ usage, by either side, there will be bloody and violent deaths.

All wars are crimes.

Because of course they are.