•  Home
•  Who We Are
•  What We Do
•  Media Centre
•  Publications
•  Humphrey Award
•  Reference
•  Links
•  Contact Us

Facing the Threat of War in Iraq: A Global Structure for Peace and Security

Jean-Louis Roy
President
Rights & Democracy

From the tense diplomatic crises and incredible rhetoric of the past weeks; from the threats of brushing aside the United Nations formulated by the USA; from the thousands of petitions which have expressed global solidarity with the Iraqi people; from the outrage demonstrated by millions at the idea of unilateral "preventative" war has flowed a realization of the importance of multilateralism and the need to reinforce the international structures for the creation and maintenance of peace and security. Consolidating the United Nations; reinforcing its global monitoring, inspection and reporting capacities; and fostering an effective International Criminal Court are the three pillars of our task.

From the European common declaration, we have heard that war is not inevitable, that force is the last resort, that the UN weapons inspectors need more time. China, Russia and a great many other countries have publicly agreed that these are the guiding principles for the immediate future.

Consolidating the United Nations

The current crisis has proven beyond a doubt the central place of the United Nations in our analysis, conception and decision-making about peace and security. This system assembles all the nations of our fragmented world. The notion that the United Nations could be marginalized from international affairs constitutes an unimaginable regression and entails incalculable consequences. This notion must be seen for what it is: an attack on the norms, obligations and institutions which, together, assure the cohesion and continuity of our common humanity. The entire world, therefore, must reconstitute a global coalition in support of the United Nations.

In comparison with the unpredictability and anarchy of war, it seems like a blessing to be working within the context of Security Council Resolution 1441. For the moment, the debate about Iraq will take place in the United Nations, the institution whose purpose is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. We must seize this window of opportunity to ensure that the United Nations remains credible and relevant, is given the means to fulfil its mandate, and remains the unique political institution of peace and security.

We are setting the precedent about how to deal with threats to global security and peace. In doing so, we must base our decisions on the principles of international law-including humanitarian and human rights law-that have been developed within the United Nations system since the end of World War II. When we consider the growing incivility and instability around the world-the still impressive list of dictatorships and humanitarian crises-it is clear that we must face the future with a better doctrine than illegal, unilateral and "preventative" force. Applying such a doctrine in places like Iraq, North Korea, Kashmir or Palestine is flirting with absolute disaster.

We must come to terms with the phenomenon of rearmament and militarization which is feeding on the heightened insecurity of our time. For instance, we must consider the global implications of the fact that the American administration refuses to rule out the use nuclear weapons, has increased its military budget to over $400 billion in 2004 and has systematically excluded itself from the purview of arms control.

In this dangerous context, the Canadian government's proposal to the Security Council is a significant development. Canada's ambassador to the United Nations has said that weapons inspectors should immediately set out a list of key remaining disarmament tasks, and that the UN should establish benchmarks for Iraqi compliance. However, an imposed deadline should not plunge the world into war.

Our commitment to the United Nations cannot vanish if and when the current crisis is averted. A strong analysis of the resources and capacities dedicated to the United Nations security agenda must be undertaken so that it can adapt to new global realities.

Reinforcing the United Nations' global monitoring, inspection and reporting capacities

We need to reflect on our ability to prevent war. At present, in Iraq, the best preventative measure available is the UN weapons inspection regime. In this regard, the Canadian government should support the entrenchment and expansion of the inspection mission as envisioned by the French and German governments. If the time and resources are given to make weapons inspections into a broader peace-building exercise, that model could prove itself as a credible and viable alternative to dealing with a situation like North Korea by force.

The United Nations' preventative capacities need to given some permanence, so that we do not respond to crisis on an ad hoc basis. Moreover, we must strengthen the United Nations' monitoring, inspection and reporting capabilities in order to identify "hot-spots" before they become full-blown crises. The Secretary-General should prepare an annual report on the current state of (in)security in the world-including an account of the arms trade and military expenditures-with an evaluation of the United Nations' on-going ability to fulfil its security mandate.

Fostering the International Criminal Court

The best way to bring dictators to justice is through international criminal prosecutions. After all, the most ruthless individuals are the ones least likely to be affected by economic sanctions or bombing campaigns. There is a clear-cut case to be made that Saddam Hussein has committed genocide against the Shi'a and Kurd populations in Iraq, that he has committed war crimes by using chemical weapons, and that he is guilty of crimes against humanity. It therefore is extremely regrettable that the American administration has systematically undermined the development of international criminal law. In the midst of its war on the International Criminal Court, the current administration can't advocate putting Saddam Hussein in the prison cell next to Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague.

If the ICC is not an option, the Security Council does have the power to create an ad hoc tribunal to deal with Iraq, as it has done in former-Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Lockerbie and Sierra Leone. Obviously, apprehending Saddam Hussein and bringing him before an international criminal tribunal would put the members of an international military/police force at risk, but this does not mean the option should be precluded. To the extent that international policing entails the use of force, at least that force would be incremental, proportional and infinitely more justifiable than the American plans for "Operation Shock and Awe".

Incidentally, dealing with a dictator in a court means that evidence will be probed, arguments will be countered, and truth will be weighed against the law. This cannot be said about the manner in which the case against Saddam Hussein (regarding his connection to Al-Qaida and his weapons of mass destructions) has been presented through the mass media, by Colin Powell and Tony Blair. Considering that the maximum punishment for non-compliance with Resolution 1441 is the death penalty for half a million Iraqis, Canada must insist that every decision about the use of force is based on solid facts and not on conjecture, propaganda and innuendo.

The Situation in Iraq

In the interval, we must take the threat of weapons of mass destruction seriously, as well as confronting the very real humanitarian crisis that underlies Saddam Hussein's regime. To do so constructively, it is critical that we get beyond the extremely narrow choices posed in the context of Security Council Resolution 1441-Is Saddam Hussein disarmed, yes or no? Will unilateral force be used, yes or no?-whose logic seems to lead us, almost inexorably, to war.

We cannot be mistaken: Iraq remains encircled by overwhelming military power. The American administration has publicized its plans for virtual annihilation of Iraq. If carried out to the maximum of its devastation, the initial phase of "Operation Shock and Awe" will strike Iraq with 2,000 to 3,000 missile and bomb strikes within the first 48 hours, with the explosive force to turn Baghdad into the non-nuclear equivalent of Hiroshima. United Nations contingency planners have concluded that there will be up to half a million deaths and casualties. Afterwards, there will be an outbreak of diseases in epidemic, if not pandemic, proportions. The nutritional status of 3 million people will be dire, 3.6 million people will need emergency shelter, 900,000 Iraqis will flee to neighbouring countries, and another 2 million will become internal refugees.

Our respect for the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of each of these Iraqi people must motivate further diplomatic efforts and political will at this moment. We must build on the idea that war is not inevitable, that force is the last resort, that UN weapons inspectors must have more time.

At present, we are relieved to see that Iraq is being debated within a multilateral framework and that the United Nations has proven its resilience so far. Now it must be strengthened in order to prove its relevance and credibility. Its relevance depends on its ability to adapt itself to the insecurity of our time, to bring Saddam Hussein to justice and to address the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Its credibility depends on its ability to uphold its most fundamental principle-that the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world-in the midst of this crisis.

Jean-Louis Roy
President
Rights & Democracy