A rchive Date
[ 26-01-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/mansur_toronto.html
Iraqi non-compliance makes war imminent
By SALIM MANSUR -- For the Toronto Sun
January 26, 2003
LONDON, Ont. -- The recent brouhaha over what John McCallum said about Canada's participation in a likely war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and Jean Chretien publicly repudiating his defence minister, is another indication of how policy-making in Ottawa has incrementally been reduced to the whim of the prime minister.
Canadians are poorly informed on a matters of great urgency; of whether or not Canada will participate in military actions against a rogue regime that remains in violation of requirements spelled out clearly in a series of UN Security Council resolutions dating back to 1991 and, most recently, in Resolution 1441 of Nov. 8, 2002.
A member state refusing compliance with a Security Council resolution adopted under the Chapter 7 heading places that member in conflict with the United Nations, and this calls for measures, including force, to implement the decision of the council. Iraqi non-compliance with the requirements of the Security Council over the past dozen years has brought the UN to its Rubicon.
Either the UN, our best hope for an international rule of law, has the resolve to force compliance of its demands on a member state that is in conflict with the world body or, in failing to do this - due to gridlock among Council's permanent members arising from divergent interests - it becomes an empty shell of pious intent in the manner of the League of Nations. Resolution 1441 may be described as the Security Council finally bolting the doors on the Iraqi tyrant.
Article 1 of the resolution states unambiguously, "Iraq has been and remains in material breach" of all relevant resolutions requiring it to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction. Article 2 indicates Iraq being given "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council."
Skeptics, willing to give a murderous tyrant the benefit of the doubt, claim Saddam's regime is being compelled to prove a negative when there is no smoking gun to be found.
Effort to acquire weapons
Intelligence gathering and information provided by defectors who were once senior members of Saddam's regime - such as Dr. Khidhir Hamza, a physicist and director of Iraq's nuclear program, and Gen. Wafic Sammarai, head of military intelligence - point to a continued frantic effort by Saddam to acquire weapons of mass destruction and deceive international controls.
Hence, Resolution 1441 is not about finding a smoking gun to trigger military action against a regime already in material breach of Security Council resolutions.
The matter at hand is whether the present inspection teams headed by Hans Blix of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), and Mohamed El Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), can provide the Security Council, within the time frame specified in Resolution 1441, assurance of Baghdad's compliance being transparent, diligent and satisfactory.
A second resolution authorizing use of force, as being presently discussed at the UN, has more to do with the politics of the Security Council's permanent members than any definitive requirements, procedural or legal.
Matter of formality
An authorizing resolution may be only a matter of formality, if there is a prior informal agreement that a permanent member (China, France, or Russia) will not vote negatively. In the absence of such an understanding, or an impasse that cannot be brokered, it's quite likely no further resolution will be sought.
The United States - the Bush administration is armed with the Congressional approval of a war resolution on Iraq - and Britain remain committed to the use of force once diplomacy has been exhausted.
The period of diplomacy is limited, and neither Washington nor London, is prepared to extend it beyond that set forth in Resolution 1441.
Thus the question of Canada's participation in an imminent war is not hypothetical.
Canada has to decide whether it will continue to remain a responsible member of both the UN and the various security arrangements it shares with the United States or, by default, or choice, become a northern version of Switzerland.
Salim Mansur is a professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario. His column appears alternate Thursdays. He can be reached at smansurca@yahoo.ca
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|