Surgical strikes. Collateral damage. Shock and awe strategy. There now, doesn’t that sound so much better than what the United States and its allies (let’s call them “The Coalition of the Killing”) are really doing in Iraq?

They are ending hundreds of innocent civilian lives (as many as 214 as of March 24, according a detailed account of civilian deaths posted at www.iraqbodycount.net). All of this is at the whim of a few elected people and lots of unelected people — George W. Bush belonging to the latter group, of course. Presumably, the euphemisms help them sleep better, but they shouldn’t fool you or anyone else.

The supposed rationale for this war has shifted so often that even its proponents seem to have difficulty remembering it from one day to the next. If it’s about avenging 9/11, Iraq is clearly the wrong target. If it’s about weapons of mass destruction, General Tommy Franks confirmed last week that the invading troops haven’t found any. If it’s about creating a free and democratic Iraq, why is the U.S. arguing for the installation of a military governor after the conquest is complete — and why are American soldiers raising the stars and stripes everywhere they go?

The invasion of Iraq is just the kind of attack that the United Nations was set up to deal with. Of course, that’s not likely to happen any time soon. The United States and Britain hold veto power in the Security Council, and the UN has already been tainted by its near complicity in the attack. Although it’s not clear whether a majority of countries on the Security Council would have supported a resolution authorizing the use of violence in Iraq, chances are that the answer was “no” — or the Americans would have pushed forward with the vote. What really sealed the fate of the tepid attempt at multilateralism was opposition from China, Russia, and what Donald Rumsfeld calls “old Europe” (the “old Europe” which assisted the United States during the American Revolution and gave them the Statue of Liberty).

The Lawyer’s Committee on Nuclear Policy has released a detailed legal opinion conclusively demonstrating that the invasion of Iraq is contrary to the United Nations Charter and recognized standards of international law. Their report concludes that:

[U]nder the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exists. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful.

Arab countries (including Bahrain and Qatar, two of the three countries where American and British troops are based) have condemned what they call the “aggression” against Iraq. They are calling for the immediate withdrawal of the invading forces from the country. The Arab League resolution calls on Arab states not to participate in any military action “damaging to the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq.” The organization will also be calling for an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to consider demanding an end to the war.

Canada is in extremely good company in refusing to join in the attack.

In the House of Commons, on March 17, Prime Minister Chrétien stated: “We believe that Iraq must fully abide by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. We have always made clear that Canada would require the approval of the Security Council if we were to participate in a military campaign & If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate.”

I gained a new level of respect for Jean Chrétien when I heard those words.

Canada should go much further than simply declining to send soldiers. We should bring our ships home from the Persian Gulf (even though they are ostensibly there as part of the war in Afghanistan). We should remove all members of the Canadian Forces from exchange programs that may involve them in supporting the war).

As NDP leader Jack Layton told reporters after Chrétien’s statement (which he obviously welcomed), “Canada can no longer sit on the sidelines and refuse to say that this war is wrong.”

Tens of thousands of Canadians are already doing that — whether it’s by taking to the street, by writing letters, by calling phone-in shows or by wearing buttons. It’s time for the Canadian government to show some real leadership and actively speak out against the actions of the United States and Britain.

picture-2299.jpg

Scott Piatkowski

Scott Piatkowski is a former columnist for rabble.ca. He wrote a weekly column for 13 years that appeared in the Waterloo Chronicle, the Woolwich Observer and ECHO Weekly. He has also written for Straight...