Editorial

No to Canada's Participation in an Illegal and Unjust War

The Liberal government of Jean Chretien, without any consultation with parliament or with the Canadian people, has decided once again to participate in an illegal and unjust war on behalf of the United States. Canadian military personnel are already on their way to take part in the devastation of Afghanistan being inflicted by U.S and British forces.

Canada has established an international reputation as a proponent of the rule of law in international relations. Many of us have argued over the years that this reputation is not deserved and that successive Canadian governments have used this image and the cloak of "peacekeeping" to pursue the objectives of U.S. foreign policy and the interests of Canadian capitalists around the world. However, that reputation, deserved or not, is rapidly being torn to shreds by Canadian governments which are more anxious to appease U.S. militarism than to uphold international law.

The Chretien government is trying to position itself on both sides of the fence on America's new war against the Afghan people. Despite the fact that the main players in this war - the U.S. and Britain - both refer to their aggression as a war and despite the fact that CNN shows the bombs exploding, and pictures of the shattered building and injured people, Chretien insists that: "We do not call this a war." Instead, he wants to perpetuate a myth that this is merely a police action against a handful of terrorists, fully sanctioned by the United Nations and in accordance with the rules of international law.

There is simply no truth to this myth. There is a UN Security Council resolution, passed in the aftermath of the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, demanding that the Afghan Taliban government hand over Osama bin Laden to the United Nations for possible prosecution. There is virtual universal condemnation of the September 11 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. However, there is no Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Afghanistan, the Taliban or even against bin Laden's Al Qaida camps within Afghanistan.

In the absence of such a Security Council resolution, the United States has seen fit to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which recognizes the right of any country to use military force to defend itself against an attack by another country. International law is quite clear that this includes the right to respond with military force to an attack by irregular armed forces or terrorists under the control of a foreign government, such as the Contras who were used by the United States to attack the sovereign state of Nicaragua. In other words, in that situation international law recognized the right of the Nicaraguan Sandinista government to take military action against the United States, if it saw fit to do so. Likewise, it would recognize the right of the United States to use military force against any country which controlled a terrorist group and used that group to launch attacks against the United States. However, it is equally clear that the UN Charter does not recognize the right to retaliate once an attack has ended. The United Nations has other forums and other mechanisms to resolve such disputes.

The Bush administration has repeatedly admitted that the Taliban government of Afghanistan has little or no influence over Osama bin Laden and that it is extremely unlikely that it could expel him from Afghanistan even if it were so inclined. In other words, the terms of Article 51 do not apply in this situation and therefore cannot be invoked to justify a war against the Taliban.

In addition, the attempts by the Bush administration t extend of Article 51 to include the right to strike any countries which harbour terrorists are also not in accordance with international law. Such an extension violates not only the letter of the United Nations Charter, but its spirit, as well. The principles contained within that Charter are as valid today as they were when they were adopted in the aftermath of the Second world War, when a world sick of war and destruction attempted to establish peaceful alternatives for the settling of disputes between nations. Although over the past five decades the United Nations has allowed its Charter to be violated more often than not, especially by the United States and its allies, it remains the only viable alternative to the law of the jungle and the philosophy that "might makes right".

If the Canadian government was truly interested in upholding the rule of law internationally, if it had any sense of self-respect or any appreciation of the wishes of the Canadian people it would immediately end its participation in this illegal war and take an unequivocal stand in defence of the rule of law and would recognize the United Nations as the sole arbiter of international disputes. This is the only w to avoid a spiralling escalation of international terror and lawlessness.