|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 
Prepare for Peace in Iraq
|
 |
 |
 |
You are invited to indicate your support for the statement, Prepare for Peace in Iraq, which challenges the international community "to accompany the people of Iraq, not with more bombs and missiles, but with moral, political and material support." Click here to download the pdf file of the statement. |
||
 |
 |
 |
Contents
- We believe that war is not the answer
- We believe that peace is more than the avoidance of war
- We believe that peace is linked to human rights and the will of the people
- We believe the arms race in the Middle East must be ended
- We believe we must put the people of Iraq first
- We believe it is time to act for peace, not war
The statement is the joint initiative of KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical
Justice Initiatives, the Justice and Peace Commission of the Canadian
Council of Churches, and Project Ploughshares. It emphasizes the
urgent need for verifiable Iraqi rejection of weapons of mass destruction
and argues that neither war nor the status quo is a means of assuring
that important objective. Instead, it offers a positive, realistic,
and transformative approach to the problem of Iraq.
National church leaders are commending this statement to congregations
and parishes across Canada, and are calling on all Canadians to
endorse the message for a peaceful and enduring resolution of the
Iraq crisis. The statement is thus also being widely circulated
to community groups, faith communities and individuals. Project
Ploughshares has been asked by the statement sponsors to collect
the responses and to forward them to the Prime Minister at regular
intervals.
Below, you may read the statement itself along with extensive
background material.
You may sign onto the statement by:
- Downloading the Adobe pdf version of the statement here
(
123 Kb), filling in your endorsement, and returning it to Project
Ploughshares by mail or fax (address and fax included on the statement).
- Use the electronic endorsement form available here
(See also the preface and statement posted on the Project Ploughshares website) - Phone in your endorsement by calling Project Ploughshares at
1-519-907-3223 ext. 706.
 |
We believe that war is not the answer |
|
 |
 |
Twelve years ago a UN-mandated and US-led coalition went to war against Iraq. Tens of thousands of children, women, and men were killed. The destroyed infrastructure and subsequent economic sanctions together with continued bombing contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands more. Now, just when UN inspectors have begun to work effectively, we are on the brink of another war.
We believe that renewed war on Iraq will not deliver lasting disarmament. War is most likely to deliver more of what it always does - lost lives, environmental destruction, physical and psychological damage for both victims and aggressors, wasted resources, threats of widened political instability and increased terrorism, more hatred, and re-energized extremism.
Background
Gulf War fatalities - A detailed study by Beth Osborne Daponte of Carnegie Mellon University concludes that Iraqi war deaths in 1991 were 205,500 (according to the following breakdown: 56,000 soldiers killed in combat; 3,500 civilians killed in combat; 35,000 killed in post-war violence by the Iraqi regime; and 110,000 civilians killed in the first year following the war due to adverse health effects). ["A Case Study in Estimating Casualties from War and Its Aftermath: The 1991 Persian Gulf War," ]
Infrastructure destruction - An extensive report by Human Rights Watch notes the destruction of food warehouses, a dairy factory, flour-milling and grain-storage facilities, and several water-treatment plants. Four of the country's five hydroelectric facilities were destroyed. "The cost to the civilian population of these attacks on the electrical system was severe. Iraq was quickly transformed from a modern, energy-dependent society into...a 'pre-industrial age.' Shortages of food due to the UN embargo were exacerbated by the lack of refrigeration and the impairment of Iraq's highly mechanized, irrigation-based agriculture. The nation's electricity-dependent water-purification and sewage-treatment facilities were crippled, creating a serious health hazard. Hospitals and clinics were forced to meet this growing health emergency, and to treat the war wounded, with, at most, erratic electricity supplied by back-up generators." ["Needless deaths in the Gulf War: Civilian Casualties During the Air Campaign and Violations of the Laws of War," New York Human Rights Watch (1991)]
Iraqi repression of revolt - Gil Loescher and Arthur C. Helton, claim that when Hussein suppressed the revolts of Shi'as in the south and Kurds in the north (the revolts having been launched in part because they had been led to believe they would get American support, which was not forthcoming), the consequences included "at least 30,000 dead," and "more than a million people" displaced ("some 700,000 crossed into Iran and nearly 400,000 massed on Iraq's border with Turkey"). "War on Iraq: an impending refugee crisis," Open Democracy.
Impact of subsequent sanctions - The Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq cites a succession of UN studies, all linking sanctions to extraordinary suffering and death, including studies in 1997 by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in 1998 by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, in 1999 by the Humanitarian Panel of the Security Council, and in 2000 by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. A variety of studies estimate there were more than 500,000 deaths, mostly children, attributable to sanctions. When US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked whether that level of deaths was "worth it", she did not dispute the figure, but answered that while it was "a very hard choice," the US government felt that "the price is worth it." ["Guide to Sanctions,"].
Air Strikes - No-fly zones were created in 1991, ostensibly to protect vulnerable Kurdish populations in the north and Shi'ite populations in the south. The US, the UK and France (until it pulled-out in 1998) enforced the no-fly restriction with regular overflights in operations Northern and Southern Watch. The US has flown over 150,000 sorties over Iraq ["Firing Blanks at the Iraqi Military", Micah Zenko, Chicago Tribune, March 29, 2001] In protest to this perceived threat to its sovereignty, Iraq routinely launches anti-aircraft missiles at the planes flying overhead. In maintaining the no-fly zones, the US and UK frequently launch airstrikes against these military installations. These have become more numerous since Operation Desert Fox in 1998 and the US Bombing Watch database records some 170 bombing attacks since the beginning of 2000. [Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace]
Presence of Troops - As of January 2003, the US alone had over 120,000 troops stationed in the Persian Gulf preparing for war. The troops are distributed at Air Force bases in Turkey, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, military bases in Kuwait and Qatar, as well as naval battle groups based in the Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf and Mediterranean.
Top
of page
|
We believe that peace is more than the avoidance of war. |
|
|
|
We also know that simply avoiding war will not solve the fundamental problems of Iraq - an unrepresentative regime that violates human rights and may not be in compliance with its obligations related to weapons of mass destruction. Peace and justice require more than the absence of war. Outlaw regimes that still retain or aspire to the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction cannot be allowed to stand, in Iraq or anywhere else. Indeed, we believe that durable disarmament and accountable governance are closely linked.
Background
Ending repression - Iraq's abuses of human rights are legion and the list of its infractions against international standards is long and serious. Its genocidal tactics and use of chemical weapons during the Anfal Massacre of 1998 against the Kurdish population of the North, use of child combatants in the Iran-Iraq War, and brutal repression of the 1991 Shi'ite and Kurdish uprisings are prominent among its violations of International Humanitarian Law ["Justice for Iraq", Human Rights Watch Policy Paper, December 2002, http://www.humanrightswatch.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq1217bg.htm]. Iraq remains in violation of a host of UN Security Council resolutions. These are not mere technical breaches of arcane international law; on the contrary, they are concrete crimes, the survivors of which live in intense suffering and pain.
Commitment to global disarmament - The regime of Saddam Hussein is in violation of the commitments and norms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. The fact that some other states are also in serious violation of fundamental disarmament obligations is relevant and demands action, although in no way mitigates the seriousness of, or excuses, Iraq's egregious behaviour. Still, the global double standard with regard to nuclear weapons is not sustainable. NATO states cannot legitimately continue to claim that nuclear weapons are essential for their security while calling on others not to acquire them. Commitment to the universal prohibition of the possession and use of nuclear weapons, as with all other weapons of mass destruction, is the only sustainable option.
Responsibility to act - The primary responsibility in this crisis rests with Iraq. In accordance with its obligations under international norms and treaties, and UN Security Council resolutions, Iraq is under lawful international order to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction, and to facilitate the international community's verification of such destruction. At the same time, however, the international community has the responsibility to ensure that Iraq meets its basic obligations.
Preventing nuclear proliferation - The danger of nuclear weapons proliferation is obvious and cannot be ignored. There is, however, no credible evidence offered that Iraq has, or will soon, develop a nuclear capacity. In a January 9 report to the media, Hans Blix, head of the UNMOVIC delegation of weapons inspectors said that investigators had found no "smoking gun" suggesting Iraq had resumed any clandestine weapons programs ["No 'Smoking Gun' So Far, UN is Told", Colum Lynch, Washington Post, January 10, 2003]. Inspections and sanctions are the most effective means in the short-term of preventing Iraq's acquisition of nuclear weapons. In the long term, as argued below, preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iraq depends on permanently changing the situation in, and thus the priorities of, Iraq itself.
|
We believe that peace is linked to human rights and the will of the people. |
|
|
|
Iraqi governments will be most likely to permanently forego the
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction when the Iraqi people have
the means to define and mandate alternative national priorities.
If Iraqis were free to choose, it is unlikely that they would support
a nuclear weapons program that wastes resources and brings them
only crushing sanctions and ongoing pariah status. Government that
honours the will and rights of the people, and that is built on
an empowered civil society, is key to the reliable rejection of
weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. Responsible government of this
kind cannot be installed by war. Iraqis must be authors of their
own change.
Yet for many decades Western policy has undermined the pursuit of
democracy and relentlessly disempowered the very people of Iraq
on whom constructive change depends. The West's active military
and political support for the regime of Saddam Hussein until 1990,
as well as comprehensive economic sanctions since then, has left
the tyrannical regime strengthened and enriched and the people demeaned
and impoverished. We reject the increasing resort to military means
to resolve entrenched conflicts.
Background
Democracy from the bottom up - Democracy and respect for human rights will be built from within. The obstacles are multiple, but civil society must be recognized and actively supported as an essential agent of sustainable change. Ironically, an important impact of the ongoing sanctions regime has been to sap the strength of civil society. Sanctions have made people completely dependent upon the regime, thereby undermining their ability to oppose its rule. Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of the New Republic, adds that while democracy is to be hoped for and pursued in Iraq, "it cannot be the main objective for embarking on a major war. If there is one thing that liberalism has no time for, it's an eschatological mentality. There is no single, sudden end to injustice. There's slow, steady, fitful progress toward a more decent and democratic world." [in George Packer, "The Liberal Quandary Over Iraq," New York Times Magazine Dec. 8, 2002]. In other words, regime change from below takes time and deliberate action. At present the democratic tradition in Iraq is weak, and the West has done nothing to promote such a tradition. Indeed, until recently, the West led by the US, but including especially France and the UK, have actively supported tyranny as being in their interests. Not only is the West's reversal of its policy approach inconsistent, but its immediate reaction to the slow pace of change by threatening the use of force against the very institutions it previously endorsed is hypocritical and immoral. Moreover, democracy is not something that can be imposed, but must be nurtured over the long-term.
|
We believe the arms race in the Middle East must be ended. |
|
|
|
United Nations Security Council resolutions require that Iraq verifiably destroy and end its pursuit of all weapons of mass destruction and medium to long-range ballistic missiles. But these same demands are repeatedly placed in the context of the objective of establishing the Middle East as a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. As long as some states in the region retain or pursue such weapons, others can be expected to attempt to obtain them as well.
Background
Regional Disarmament - Security Council Resolution 1441 is derived from Resolution 687 of 1991 which prohibits Iraq from possessing or acquiring ballistic missiles over the range of 150 kilometres as well as any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or related materials or facilities (referring to Res 687, paras 8-13). Paragraph 14 sets the context and broader objective: the Security Council "notes that the actions to be taken by Iraq in paragraphs 8 to 13 represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons." Resolution 687, in its preambular paragraphs, also refers to the importance of "all states" adhering to chemical and biological weapons bans. In addition, the resolution reminds states to "use all available means" to establish a "nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East." Meeting in November 2002, the Arab League expressed support for inspections, but stressed the importance of the UN paying equal attention to Israel's weapons of mass destruction, [Neil MacFarquhar, "Iraq Inspections Receive Approval from Arab League," New York Times, Nov 11/02.]
Nuclear proliferation pressures - An American-led war on Iraq, with or without UN blessing, could, ironically, increase nuclear proliferation pressures. Regimes chronically at odds with the United States are likely to conclude that in order to successfully act in defiance of international norms, states must do one of two things to avoid the US-led wrath of the international community: either curry special favour with the United States (e.g. Pakistan and Sudan on counter-terrorism, Saudi Arabia on access to oil, and so on), or clandestinely acquire a nuclear weapons capability and then flaunt it (Pakistan, Israel, India, and now, North Korea). The highly respected US publication Arms Control Today reports a similar conclusion: "The lesson Baghdad learned from the Gulf War is that such weapons - especially nuclear weapons - are even more important than they had thought. Senior Iraqis privately acknowledged that it had been a mistake to invade Kuwait before completing a nuclear weapon. They are convinced the outcome of the war would have been radically different if Washington had had to consider an Iraqi nuclear capability. Certainly, Saddam Hussein understands that today's debate about invading Iraq to effect regime change would not be taking place if Baghdad could threaten to hit US forces or Israel with a nuclear weapon." [Charles Duelfer, "The Inevitable Failure of Inspection in Iraq," Arms Control Today September 2002.] Other states can also logically conclude that protection from the vagaries of White House global engineering depends finally on acquiring a credible retaliatory threat.
Broader arms control - In Res 687 the Security Council understood
its demands on Iraq within the broader context of "achieving
balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region."
In other words, the Security Council (as well as the Arab League)
recognized that to effectively address Iraq's violations of international
standards related to weapons of mass destruction, the prohibition
of weapons of mass destruction will ultimately have to be region
wide, and accompanied by broad based agreements on conventional
arms reductions and controls.
|
We believe we must put the people of Iraq first. |
|
|
|
Iraq has become a place of extraordinary suffering, and war would only add to it. Even without war, these hardships will remain the primary reality for the people of Iraq for the foreseeable future. The tragedy of Iraq has been decades in the making, and the road to genuine transformation will be slow and troubled. The only reasonable certainty they face is that the costs of war would be even worse than the current situation and would delay, not hasten, the advent of sustainable change. We believe it is our collective responsibility to accompany the people of Iraq, not with more bombs and missiles, but with moral, political and material support.
Background
Humanitarian - "The regime will aim to draw the US forces into urban warfare in Baghdad. A civilian death toll of at least 10,000 is likely…This is a low estimate, the experience of urban warfare in Beirut and elsewhere suggests even higher casualties…Evidence of Iraqi military tactics in 1991 shows that the survival of the regime is the core policy and that chemical and biological weapons are almost certain to be used, certainly against attacking troops and possibly against targets in neighboring countries." [Paul Rogers, "Iraq: Consequences of War," Oxford Research Group, November 2002.] A Medact report (Medact is the British affiliate of IPPNW) estimates casualties, largely civilian, of 50,000 to 250,000 within the first three months of an attack, and many profound long term consequences related to the public health system, agriculture, water, and energy. [George Edmonson, Washington Star, Nov 12/02.] The costs in health care and nutrition can be best understood by recalling the consequences of the 1991 war on Iraq.
Economic costs - At the low-end, a "quick victory" war of a few months is estimated to cost US$50 billion in direct costs, whereas a year-long war would be three times that. Overall costs over the next decade, including reconstruction and economic downturn triggered by war, would likely range from a modest $120 billion (if everything goes extremely well) to a more substantial $1.6 trillion in a much worse case scenario ("if the war drags on, occupation is lengthy, nation-building is costly, the war destroys a large part of Iraq's oil infrastructure, and there are both lingering military and political resistance to US occupation, and major adverse psychological reactions to the conflict.") [William D. Nordhaus, "Iraq: The Economic Consequences of War," The New York Review of Books, December 5, 2002.] The costs to the Iraqi economy would proportionately, be much greater.
Detraction from Other issues - A broad range of critics argue that the US obsession with Iraq has little to do with disarmament or the struggle against terrorism, and a great deal to do with oil and overall US geo-strategic advantage. Indeed, even the attention to the prospect of war on Iraq diverts political and material resources away from urgent needs, notably the pursuit of persons and groups still engaged in acts of terror (such as the attacks in Mombasa and Bali). Other commentators also cite the diversion of attention from other issues: "The war in Iraq threatens to claim the scarce resources and attention of the United States for many years, distracting the country from other troubling spots, like North Korea, or from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The administration focuses on Iraq while slow growth, fiscal deficits, a crisis of corporate governance, and growing health care problems threaten the economy at home. The domestic economy and the rest of the world will take a back seat while the US is preoccupied with war in Iraq." [William D. Nordhaus, "Iraq: The Economic Consequences of War," The New York Review of Books, December 5, 2002.]
|
We believe it is time to act for peace, not war. |
|
|
|
| a. | Reject further war on Iraq - the consequences of which are borne primarily by the people; Background: The pursuit of alternatives to war is not just another option, it is an obligation the UN Charter places on all member states. Article 33 requires that "the parties to any dispute...shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means...." [Brian J. Foley, "Avoiding War: Using International Law to Compel a Problem-Solving Approach," The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research]. The UN charter defines that body's fundamental objective as "lift[ing] the scourge of war" - in other words, the purpose of the UN is not to elevate war into a routine response to intransigence, even though it retains the right to undertake or authorize military action. Its primary mandate is the peaceful settlement of disputes. A draft UN report estimating the humanitarian costs of a war at this time predicts catastrophe because of high dependence on the government for basic provisions, with 60% of the population subsisting entirely on rations. Transportation routes would block food distribution and all exports, Government stocks could be damaged, lack of electricity would affect water and sanitation services, and an estimated 500,000 people would require medical services from a crippled health system. Widespread hunger and illness would be a likely consequence of protracted war, and a refugee crisis a virtual certainty. [Draft UN Report "Likely Humanitarian Scenarios" 10 December 2002, marked Strictly Confidential, published by the Campaign Against Sanctions in Iraq ]. |
| b. | Persist in a vigorous strategy of containment to prevent Iraq's acquisition and/or retention of weapons of mass destruction through internationally mandated inspections and ongoing monitoring; Background: Canada is well positioned to ensure an
approach to inspections that is credible, but not undermined
by an unrealistic burden to deliver 100 percent certainty.
For inspections to work, there must be a reasonable, measured
understanding of what constitutes material breach of the resolution.
What is the difference between cooperation and non-cooperation?
In the normal conduct of inspections, it is to be expected
that there will be discussions, calls for information, complaints
that information is not sufficient, counter-claims that no
more information is available, and so on. It will be essential
to create an atmosphere that does not place the threat of
imminent military attack at the centre of all disputes but
rather permits discussion and negotiation toward reasonable
certainty. |
| c. | Pursue diplomacy toward establishing the entire Middle East as a region free of all weapons of mass destruction; Background: Resolution 687 refers specifically to
"a dialogue among states in the region" on the issue
of regional disarmament. Canada can work with other states
to initiate regional dialogue. |
| d. | End the comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq; Background: Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) states that upon Iraq's compliance with the disarmament requirements outlined in paragraphs 8-13, as approved by the Security Council, the sanctions will be lifted. The Security Council agrees to review the sanctions program and Iraq's progress toward disarmament every sixty days. Resolution 1441 (2002) reiterates the conditions for the lifting of sanctions, in calling for a return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. The UN humanitarian report argues that "the sustentative
majority of the population, immediately prior to the events
of 1991, were in full employment and had cash and material
assets available to them to cope with the crisis…the
bulk of the population is now totally dependent on the Government
of Iraq for a majority, if not all, of their basic needs and…have
no way of coping if they cannot access them: the sanctions
regime, if anything, has served to increase dependence on
the Government as almost the sole provider" ["Likely
Humanitarian Scenarios, 10 December 2002]. |
| e. | Embark on diplomatic and political engagement, including material support for Iraqi civil society, to advance respect for human rights and accountable governance; Background: Resolution 688 (1991), in the context
of condemning the Iraqi regime's repression of civilians,
expressed "the hope that an open dialogue will take place
to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi
citizens are respected." It is critical that the international
community act on this "hope" and facilitate and
sponsor such dialogues, perhaps beginning with exiled Iraqis. |
| f. | Reinvigorate diplomatic efforts with states of the region to address outstanding issues, notably the Israel/Palestine conflict, in the context of region-wide talks on security and cooperation in the Middle East; and Background: Johann Galtung and Dietrich Fischer have made the suggestion that the UN Security Council should cooperate with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (representing 56 Islamic countries) to sponsor an open-ended Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Middle East. The conference should consider:
[Johan Galtung and Dietrich Fischer, "The
Iraq Conflict 2002: A Transcend Perspective (TRANSCEND is
a peace and development network).]. |
| g. | Explore legal/judicial and other measures to address accusations of crimes against humanity. Background: Some have advocated for an international
campaign of legal action against Saddam Hussein along the
same lines as the efforts against Augusto Pinochet of Chile.
[John Cavanagh, "Against
dictators: use law, not war," Open Democracy, December
13, 2002]. |