On the first anniversary of the downing of the World Trade Centre, the
drums of war are again beating. No one has plausibly suggested an Iraqi
connection to the events of September 11/01, yet we are told a majority
of Americans would favour an unprovoked attack on Iraq, provided the
U.S. doesn't act alone.
Why would the world's richest and most powerful nation consider
attacking one of the world's poorest and what should Canada's reaction
be?
Iraq is a small, virtually landlocked country, about 2/3 the size of
Saskatchewan. Dependent on imported food and exports of oil, both
largely cut off by sanctions, Iraq's population of 20 million has an
average income of under $1 per day. (Doctors receive $5 per month;
unemployment exceeds 50%.) The majority of the population, according
to
the World Health Organization, is reduced to semi-starvation. Publicly
stripped of most of its military capacity, inspected for weapons 9000
times since 1991, Iraq has also been subjected to bombardment by U.S.
and British war planes almost weekly ever since the Gulf war ended
in
1991. The bombings over the north and south of the country have targeted
everything from sheep to the shepherds guarding them.
Impoverished, weak and vulnerable, Iraq is incapable of defending or
even flying over these so called no-fly zones covering approximately
2/3
of its territory.
The once prosperous Iraqi economy has been bled white by war and a
decade of sanctions -- the most punitive in modern history. During
this
decade, over a million Iraqis, mostly children, have died a painful
death and millions more are suffering severe damage and face drastically
shortened lives. During the Gulf War the U.S. fired 900 tonnes of
depleted uranium ammunition into Iraq covering it with radioactive
contamination. Cancer and leukemia rates are now several times those
preceding the war. Families pawn remaining heirlooms to buy food or
medicine for their children. Hospital shelves are barren; even common
drugs are rare.
An unprovoked attack on another country constitutes a war crime, in
fact
the supreme war crime, according to the Nuremberg judgment. The U.N.
Charter, Article 4 states: "All members shall refrain from the threat
or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes
of
the United Nations."
Both the U.S. and Iraq are U.N. members, yet the U.S. has openly
threatened the overthrow of the Iraqi government, the assassination
of
its leadership and calls for "regime change."
Some in the U.S. administration argue that a "preemptive strike" is
justified because Iraq may in future obtain weapons of mass destruction.
To my knowledge this argument has never before been made to sanction
an
assault on a sovereign state in contravention of an entire body of
international law.
There is no evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or that
it has the intention or capacity to use them. (In 1998, International
Atomic Energy
Agency inspectors declared Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons
technology.) No evidence, in fact, that Iraq is anything other than
it
appears -- a war-devastated, essentially disarmed nation under a harsh
regime of sanctions and long and constant air bombardment.
Iraq does however possess some of the world's largest reserves of oil
which it nationalized (with compensation), in the 1970s. Iraq has since
refused U.S. demands to privatize the industry.
Around the world governments have, almost unanimously, raised their
objections to any U.S. plan to assault Iraq. This includes the
governments of Iraq's closest neighbours -- including Kuwait -- nations
with the most cause to be nervous about Iraq's intentions, if
nervousness is called for.
The unfolding of events in the coming weeks will go a long way towards
determining whether or not we live in a world of international law
or
whether one nation can and will ignore the laws and conventions that
other nations are expected, and indeed required, to live by. Without
international law, it is the law of the jungle that remains.
With its history of advocating dispute settlement legally, by
diplomatic and peaceful means, it is crucial that Canada at this moment
speak directly and forcefully for the rule of law and against the
trampling of the weak by the powerful. Our government should point
out
that we as a nation will not support an attack on Iraq.
Canada's voice, if used now, could influence the course of events.
I, for one, hope on behalf of the thousands already dying in Iraq and
the thousands more who will die if we don't speak, that we have the
courage to act on our traditions. Canada has been a loyal ally of the
U.S. for many years. Few Americans doubt the empathy Canadians felt
and
continue to feel towards the victims of September 11. Canada has a
duty
to point out that obliterating a defenseless nation half way around
the
world is not an appropriate step to take on the anniversary of the
suffering in New York.
---------------------------
David Orchard was the runner-up to Joe Clark in the 1998 PC party
leadership. He is the author of The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries
of
Resistance to American Expansionism and farms at Borden, SK. He can
be
reached at tel (306) 652-7095.