World Federalists and a Possible War in Iraq
January 30, 2003

Summary:

• Containment is the preferred alternative to war, through UN inspections, disarmament and ongoing deterrence.
• Any limited military action to enforce the current weapons inspections mandate need not and should not lead to all-out war.
• Canada must reject an invasion of Iraq unless and until there has been an express authorization of the use of force by the UN Security Council after it has determined that a bona fide and imminent threat exists to international peace and security that cannot be resolved or contained in any way other than through the use of force.

1) A CONTAINMENT POLICY: THE NEED TO STAY THE COURSE

For the first six months of 2002 it looked as though the U.S. was preparing to attack Iraq alone, or with a few coalition partners in the “war on terrorism.” George Bush had branded Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “axis of evil.” And he had declared that the U.S. must assert the right to act “preemptively” by attacking states thought to be supporting terrorists or developing weapons of mass destruction.

It was therefore a welcomed development when, by August of 2002, the U.S. administration shifted ground and sought authorization for any international action on Iraq through a resolution of the UN Security Council.

The passage, on November 8, of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was an important victory for the international community. There is now a good faith understanding at the Security Council that a renewed weapons inspections and disarmament effort should be undertaken. The resolution marked a successful effort by the international community to steer the discussion from “regime change” (as promoted by hawks in the Bush administration) to the topic of weapons of mass destruction.

In a December 19 Security Council Briefing Dr. Blix stated, “Inspections of sites have, as one important objective, the verification of industrial, military, research, and other current activities with a view to assuring that no proscribed programs or activities are regenerated at any site in Iraq. This side of the

inspection system can be characterized as a form of containment. Through the other side of the system of reinforced monitoring, there is a continuation of investigations to complete the requirement of disarmament.” Certainly with thousands of troops in the region and the inspection process underway, Iraq poses no immediate threat of attack. An ongoing policy of containment is a viable option.

It is tremendously important to continue to support the inspectors in their work. Containment is an alternative to war, through UN inspections, disarmament, verification and deterrence. Containment in the context of Iraq requires a long-term commitment by the international community and specifically by the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Under a rigorous containment policy – permanent and unfettered inspections plus minimizing the illegal trade with Iraq by its neighbours – Iraq’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability can be prevented. With all the legitimate concern with chemical and biological weapons it is still nuclear weapons that pose by far the greatest military and political danger.

2) USE OF FORCE

There is a possibility that the inspections and disarmament process may need to be backed up by the use of armed force. Saddam Hussein has twice used weapons of mass destruction and has a record of deceiving and evading his international obligations. Those obligations include a requirement to destroy all weapons of mass destruction, under Resolution 687, which was a key part of the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War.

Prior to the passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, World Federalists supported the call for a “coercive inspections regime” (as proposed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), in effect an inspections team backed up by a UN enforcement capability. It would in our view still be within the bounds of international law for the Security Council to authorize limited military action to enforce weapons inspections and disarmament, if Iraq were found to be obstructing UNMOVIC inspectors.

But enforcement of the weapons inspections mandate need not and should not lead to all-out war. There is an international legal and political consensus in favour of completing weapons inspections. There is no such consensus for “regime change” or all-out war in Iraq. Under the UN Charter and international law, the use of force is to be used proportionately and as necessary.

In the event of Iraqi non-compliance with its disarmament obligations – that is, of a very serious material breach – limited enforcement action, clearly designed to further the goal of concluding weapons inspections, while avoiding escalation to war, could be considered.
Dr. Blix’s recent report to the Security Council notes the unsatisfactory record of compliance by Iraq regarding the substance of its declarations under Resolution 1441. However, Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei also report a generally satisfactory level of Iraqi cooperation with inspectors on the ground. On balance, the UN weapons inspections process is working.

Under these circumstances, a single "material breach" of Resolution 1441 need not be the tripwire for full-scale war in Iraq. On the contrary, this should provide encouragement to the international community that the inspectors are succeeding and that a containment policy can work.

3) NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ALL-OUT WAR

In our view, there should be no Canadian participation in, or support for, military action against Iraq without the clearest possible justification under international law.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizes the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to international peace and security and, if diplomacy fails, to take military action as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, the Security Council has not in this case disclosed a bona fide threat to international peace and security – classically defined as an attack or imminent threat of attack on another state.

Iraq is in contravention of its disarmament obligations following the 1991 Gulf War. But Iraq poses no imminent threat of attack to its neighbours. The possible existence of an Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction program does not alone constitute a threat to international peace and security.

Canada’s has said that it will support action within a UN mandate. Resolution 1441 by itself does not provide sufficient legal authority for military action in Iraq.

A subsequent UN resolution authorizing the use of force, beyond what limited and proportional measures may be required to support the inspection regime, would not be consistent with international law or the UN Charter.

Therefore, Canada will need to assess the content and legality of any subsequent UN resolution mandating the use of force. Canada must reject an invasion of Iraq unless and until there has been an express authorization of the use of force by the UN Security Council after it has determined that a bona fide and imminent threat exists to international peace and security that cannot be resolved or contained in any way other than through the use of force.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
• Flora MacDonald, WFC National President
• Fergus Watt, WFC Executive Director (613) 232-0647

Other recent WFC commentaries on the crisis in Iraq are available at: http://www.worldfederalistscanada.org.