MEDIA BACKGROUNDER October 23, 2002

• In the current case of Iraq, Canada should not support military action outside a UN Security Council mandate, i.e. qualified as "self defense" or "pre-emptive self-defense."
• Canada should condition its support on the likely impact of a new Security Council resolution. Canada should determine whether the Council’s decision is likely to meet the objective of completing the weapons inspection and disarmament processes, without inviting a full-scale invasion of Iraq.
• In order to achieve this limited objective, the Security Council should authorize "coercive inspections" as proposed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

U.S. President Bush has authorized preparations for a possible attack against Iraq. Under what circumstances should Canada support such a U.S.-led intervention?

Article 51 of the Charter of the Untied Nations permits the use of military force in self-defense. But there is no evidence of an imminent attack by Iraq against the United States, or any other state that would justify the use of force in self-defense.

President Bush insists that the U.S. has the right to act "pre-emptively," in anticipation of an armed attack or to prevent "rogue states" from acquiring weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical or biological. Bush's doctrine of pre-emption undermines international law by validating striking first, i.e. not in response to an armed attack or an imminent armed attack but on the basis of alleged intentions, supposed plans and anticipations of future dangers. It is a doctrine without accountability to the international community and therefore would be disastrous for multilateralism and the rule of law.

Canadian officials have quite rightly urged that any action be taken under the authority of the United Nations Security Council. But what sort of Security Council mandate should Canada support?

Some governments take the view that there is need for little more than a continuation of the present resolutions calling for inspection and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, Iraq has in the past exploited divisions in the Security Council and obstructed the weapons inspectors. Furthermore, Iraq has demonstrated not only the potential to use weapons of mass destruction, but also the willingness to do so. A continuation of the status quo is clearly insufficient to ensure that a dangerous Iraqi regime complies with its international obligations.

On the other end of the spectrum, the U.S. and U.K. have proposed a resolution that (1) imposes strict deadlines for Iraq's disclosure of WMD programs, personnel and research facilities, (2) ensures unconditional access by international inspectors to Iraq's weapons sites; and (3) in the event of Iraqi non-compliance, authorizes "member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security."

The major problem with this resolution is that it allows member states alone to make the determination that Iraq is not in compliance, coupled with language - "all necessary means" - permitting member states to use force in response to Iraqi non-compliance. The Security Council should not allow the United States, or any other state state, to become judge, jury and executioner.

There is a third approach, one that serves the international community's interest in seeing weapons inspectors complete their work, but which would also be likely to avoid a wider war.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has developed a detailed proposal for "coercive inspections," a renewed UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) that would be backed up by the threat of military force in the event of non-compliance. An Inspections Implementation Force (IIF) would support the UNMOVIC’s work where necessary.

This IIF would be robust and responsive enough to constitute an intimidating presence at any inspection site. At the same time, it would be small enough and multinational enough that it would not appear to be an invasion force looking for an excuse to invade. The objective - removing Saddam Hussein's WMD but not Saddam himself - must be clear to all parties at all times.

The key to the proposal lies in the fact that the determination as to whether Iraq is or is not in compliance with the resolution lies with the Commission. Authority for this crucial determination is vested in the appropriate multilateral body, not any one member state. Presuming that the Commission carries out its work in an objective manner, Iraq would be reassured that the renewed inspections would not become a pretext for a wider military campaign.

The resolution creating the UNMOVIC would include a tough "or else" provision that would make it clear to Iraq that continued obstruction of the weapons inspectors would be met with much greater military force. At the same time, Iraq would know that the UN’s objective is limited to the completion of weapons inspection. Iraq would therefore be assured that compliance would be rewarded with the easing of sanctions and the other limitations on its sovereignty.

According to WFC President, Flora MacDonald, “There is fairly broad agreement in the international community of the necessity to re-constitute an unrestricted UN weapons inspections and disarmament program. There is neither broad support nor a legitimate case to be made for a full-scale invasion of Iraq with a view to achieving regime change."

Carefully mandated ‘coercive inspections’ allow the Security Council and the international community to choose a sensible middle course. This is the type of Security Council resolution that merits Canada's support.

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