Editorial

Will Chretien Take Canada to War Again?

The unanimous adoption by the United Nations Security Council of a U.S.-sponsored resolution on Iraq brings the Middle East one step closer to a cataclysmic war. The resolution specifically bars any automatic military response to charges of Iraqi non-compliance with weapons inspections and includes a clause insisting that the Security Council must decide on whether or not Iraq is in violation of the resolution. However, the terms imposed on Iraq are so broad and ambiguous that it could be held in contempt of the resolution if it fails to disclose inventories in a wide range of non-military industrial and chemical programs within 30 days, something which even Hans Blix, the head of the UN weapons inspectors, has warned is virtually impossible.

Whether the resolution will be used by the Bush administration as a pretext to launch a new war against Iraq with the supposed blessing of the United Nations remains to be seen. There are indications that the administration is sharply divided on the issue, with the Rumsfeld camp favouring war under any circumstances and the Pentagon opposing an invasion at this time. There is also a rapidly-growing peace movement emerging in the United States and strong public opposition to unilateral action by the United States. The UN resolution may not authorize automatic attacks by the U.S. to what it perceives to be violations of the UN resolution, but it provides the Bush administration with a cloak of international approval for whatever course of action it decides upon. In other words, it has allowed the Bush administration to keep its options open while depriving its opponents of some of the initiative and momentum they were developing.

Prime Minister Chretien's response to the Security Council vote was to phone President Bush and congratulate him on his diplomatic victory. At the same time, he remained coy about Canada's potential role in a U.S. war on Iraq, stating that his government was satisfied that the issue was in the hands of the UN, where it belonged. During the past two months, Chretien has indicated that Canada would only participate in a war against Iraq if such action were authorized by the Security Council.

However, Chretien's past practice raises serious doubts about this position. The UN did not authorize the U.S. bombardment and invasion of Afghanistan, but Chretien committed Canadian troops to fight under U.S. command because the U.S. threatened trade sanctions against Canada if he did not. Chretien also authorized the continued deployment of the Canadian navy in the Persian Gulf, despite the fact that this has necessitated massive cutbacks in the defence of Canada's coastlines and Arctic sovereignty.

Therefore, Chretien's refusal to reveal his government's policy towards another U.S. war against Iraq is either an attempt to mislead the Canadian public, or an indication that he has not yet received his marching orders from George Bush. It is virtually a foregone conclusion that Chretien will commit Canadian forces to an American war if the Americans demand that he do so.

Canada has no contradiction with Iraq. That country has never attacked Canada, nor are there any indications that it has either the intention or ability to attack this country. Nor does Iraq pose any threat to the United States or its people, despite the warmongering rhetoric spewing out of Washington these days. Canadians must send a clear message to the Chretien government that Canadian involvement in a U.S. war against Iraq is unacceptable, regardless of whether or not the U.S. succeeds in blackmailing the Security Council into endorsing the U.S. agenda.