Global Policy Forum

by Robin Collins

February 21, 1998

The following letter was published in edited form (the section referring to the US government's ratification of the CWC legislation was removed)

I agree with those who note that it is a bit of a stretch to argue there there is legitimate authority to a US coalition that claims its calling from the UN (ie "all necessary means" ad infinitum) in preparing to bomb Iraq over Iraq's refusal to allow inspections for weapons.

I would like to see discussion about the CRITERIA that need to exist to justify the use of force by the UN or a coalition acting in its name (and in particular criteria that distinguish an invasion of a sovereign land from refusing to allow inspectors to inspect. I think the size of the coalition this time is an indication that the international "community" does think there is a difference between invading Kuwait and stopping inspectors.)
The ideas of Edward Said and others to send issues such as the alleged breach of laws against weapons proliferation and production to the ICJ or ICC are of great interest. Have others worked on this idea any further?

14 February 1998
The Globe and Mail, the Editor:

Canada should oppose the call to arms against Iraq issued by the US government. There is no legitimate justification for the use of military force as a remedy to Iraq's refusal to allow inspections for illegal production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. It is unacceptable for the U.S. simply to refer to dubious "necessary means" to justify any action that pleases the American President.

The United Nations is rightly opposed to the production of weapons of mass destruction. However, the UN has not authorized the U.S. (or a U.S.-coalition) to use military force to enable inspections of suspected illegal weapons facilities. There is no agreement that diplomatic options have been exhausted. A majority within the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Arab League are opposed to the use of force at this time. The Canadian government is wrong to claim that an action agreed to by a Coalition of states has the authority of a United Nations directive.

Further hypocrisy in the US resolve is in evidence when one is reminded that the Congressional Act ratifying the Chemical Weapons Treaty in the United States, (in section 307), states that "the President may deny a request to inspect any [suspected chemical weapons] facility in the United States in cases where the President determines that the inspection may pose a threat to the national security interests....[and, according to the section "Not Subject to Judicial Review",] any objection by the President to an individual serving as an inspector... shall not be reviewable by any court." The U.S., as a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, might want to strike down its own restrictions on inspections before criticizing Iraq (a non-signatory) for its refusal to comply.

Robin Collins

(Note: for a reference to the Congressional Act mentioned above, see page 5 of The Nation, an editorial entitled "Chemical Arms Scam", December 22, 1997.)