Global Policy Forum

By Lloyd Axworthy

Last week, Parliament began what promises to be an ongoing debate on Canadian policy toward Iraq. It brought to the forefront some fateful choices that we as a country must make as the Bush administration gears up its military machine for a pre-emptive attack in the next few months.

The issue comes down to this: Will we support a military intervention in Iraq to achieve either the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction presumed to be possessed by the Iraqi government or to achieve a regime change of a government that is acknowledged to have committed serious humanitarian crimes? These are the rationales trotted out by intervention advocates. For the moment, we have to forget the reason originally put forward by Washington -- that there is a tie-in to terrorists. That argument has been dropped for lack of proof.

The corollary to this question is: Should we jump on the bandwagon, unequivocally support an American intervention, even without United Nations authorization, and become, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a staunch ally of President George W. Bush's "ethical" policy? The opposite consideration is to play by UN rules, weigh the evidence about Iraqi intentions and determine the best course without precipitating other problems that military action will bring.

On the matter of weapons of mass destruction, there is one caveat that should restrain the impulse of those advocating military action as a means of self-defence. We don't know what Iraq's capabilities really are to mount a threat. There has been much speculation but very little hard evidence. There is one way to get that evidence: Let the UN inspectors go to Iraq and find out. Surely one needs proof that there is a dire risk before launching military action that could kill thousands and destabilize a region. Strangely enough, Washington is now arguing against letting the inspectors proceed until, and unless, it gets a resolution authorizing military enforcement. Is there some reason to question the veracity of U.S. intentions when they stonewall inspections that Mr. Bush demanded in his UN speech only a few short weeks ago?

Enter the argument for regime change -- get rid of the monster, even if it means countless casualties among Iraqis and the invading forces. This case is justified on the basis of principles of humanitarian intervention, one of the most provocative dilemmas facing the international community. Under what circumstances, by whom, and by what methods does the right to intervene apply to protect the rights of innocent people against severe violations by their own government?

To gain answers to that issue, Canadians would do well to consider the report of the International Commission on Intervention and Sovereignty, an inquiry sponsored by the Canadian government and supported by the UN Secretary-General. The commission was set up in the aftermath of the Kosovo intervention by NATO, which justified its military action on grounds of humanitarian necessity after many months and countless diplomatic efforts to curb the excesses of the Milosevic government against ethnic Kosovars. I was party to that decision, and know what a wrenching experience a resort to force can be.

The commission rested the case for intervention on the novel concept that sovereignty is founded on the responsibility to protect people against the suppression of their rights by their own government, particularly the right to enjoy freedom from fear. If a government threatens that right or is incapable of offering such protection, then the international community should consider intervention. One of the report's key findings put the onus on the security of individuals, not the interests of the nation-state. "Such a responsibility implies an evaluation of the issue from the perspective of the victim, not the intervener."

This shift of perspective has particular relevance as we contemplate the preparations for an attack on Iraq.

Let me ask, therefore, whether the proponents of intervention are arguing from the view of the intervener -- the Bush administration -- or from the view of the victims -- the Iraqi people, who face double jeopardy (from their own government and now from the United States). So far, they haven't been given much consideration. What we have are protestations of what we think is best -- a modern variation of 19th century salvation ethos that I thought has been superseded by tenets of international agreement and collective security.

To protect against that abuse of the power of intervention, the commission established a number of thresholds that must be met: How heinous are the crimes? Have all measures been tried to correct the problem short of force? Does intervention have the support of a legitimate multilateral body? Will the force used be appropriate to the problem? I would suggest we don't have clear answers to those questions.

There are more unresolved issues: What will be the result of an invasion -- a democratic government or a faction-ridden country, unstable and insecure as we now see in Afghanistan? What will be the impact amongst many in the Moslem world who already nurture deep grievances against what they see as a continuing pattern of control and discrimination by Western countries?

Most essential is what support for a U.S. pre-emptive attack will do to tear up the years of effort to constrain the "might makes right" approach? If Washington can get away with a unilateral attack, have we not set a precedence for others to exercise the same prerogative? The result is anarchy, the law of the jungle.

Leadership by Canada is not to capitulate to the war fever spawned by a U.S. administration that, in its latest strategic document, wants to exercise "full spectrum dominance" over the rest of the world and abrogates every treaty and agreement that puts a restraint on its ambition to be the dominant power. We have been prime movers through the Commission on Intervention and Sovereignty report in trying to set out a clear set of principles to guide the international community in dealing with abuses of rights by rogue governments. The potential use of military enforcement is contemplated, but as a means of last resort. The value of working together as an international community is at the heart of its philosophy, a position I believe most Canadians would support.

Better we should act to preserve an international system based on a rule of law than to become a cheerleader for a precipitous act that, if it proceeds without international sanction, will be a highly regressive move in the search for international security and sanity.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.