Memorandum from the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament (June 2003)
LESSONS OF IRAQ
INTRODUCTION
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) thanks
the Defence Select Committee for giving it an opportunity to make
a submission to this very important inquiry. CND has a special
interest in this inquiry, given that the stated aim of the war
in Iraq was to disarm the country of its Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD). CND's aims and objectives are: to campaign non-violently
to rid the world of nuclear weapons and other WMD and to create
genuine security for future generations; to change Government
policies to bring about the elimination of British nuclear weapons
as a major contribution to global abolition; to co-operate with
other groups in the UK and internationally to ensure the development
of greater mutual security.
It was within the context of its aim and objectives
that CND rightly felt that it was its political and moral duty
to take a leading role in mobilising public and political opposition
to the war in Iraq. Events before, during and since the war have
consistently vindicated CND's reasons for opposing the war. Consider
the following:
ILLEGALITY OF
THE WAR
From the outset, CND had no doubt that a military
attack on Iraq under any circumstance would be illegal. To prove
this point, CND obtained a legal opinion from Rabinder Singh QC
and Charlote Kilroy of Matrix Chambers, which categorically stated
that both the Resolution 1441 and the UK/US Draft Resolution did
not expressly, or by implication, authorise Member States to use
force to disarm Iraq; and that the UK would be acting in violation
of international law if it were to join in any attack on Iraq
in reliance on the two documents. The vast majority of the members
of the United Nations Security Council took a similar view. Most
importantly, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said: "unilateral
action taken outside the Security Council would not conform to
the UN charter". (BBC news, 14 March 2003).
CONDUCT OF
WAR
As CND and other NGOs had warned before the
war, it is clear today that there have been severe humanitarian
consequences for the Iraqi civilian population. Although the exact
number of people who died or otherwise suffered as a direct and
indirect result of the war may never be known, news reports and
witness accounts by aid organisations have indicated that the
indiscriminate military destruction of civilian homes, public
utilities such as the main electricity grid and water and sanitation
facilities, have exacerbated the suffering of a significant proportion
of the population of Iraq already extremely vulnerable as result
of 12 years of sanctions. Today, television sets are bringing
to our living rooms heart-breaking images of children facing imminent
deaths through chronic hunger, epidemics, water borne disease
and from wounds received in direct military attacks. On 30 April,
Al-Jazeera TV and other news media reported that 55 people had
been killed and dozens more were wounded by a bomb dropped on
a popular Baghdad market. "Overnight", the report went
on, "a US B-2 stealth bomber dropped two earth-shattering
4,600lb bombs on a communications tower in the capital".
Ali Ismail Abbas, the 12 year old Iraqi boy who lost both his
arms and his entire family in a missile attack on his home in
Baghdad, came to personify the unspeakable horrors of the war
in Iraq. The British government has actively contributed to these
horrors.
In a recent Foreign Office Circular entitled:
"Iraq—Frequently Asked Questions", the department
admitted that the UK had used both cluster bombs and depleted
uranium in the war in Iraq. In its answer to the question: "How
can you justify the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium?"
the document states: "Cluster bombs are lawful weapons that
provide unique capability against certain legitimate military
targets, such as dispersed armoured units . . . UK forces fired
depleted munitions during the conflict because they are the most
effective anti-armour weapons". Unfortunately, no due care
seems to have been taken to ensure the protection of civilian
population against such weapons.
Given this compelling evidence, CND decided
to serve Mr Tony Blair, Mr Geoff Hoon and Mr Jack Straw with a
notice, which made it clear that if the UK acted so as to breach
any International Humanitarian Law (IHL) within the definition
of "war crimes", CND and others would take steps to
ensure that they were held accountable within International Criminal
Law. Since then, an International Coalition of lawyers and NGOs
has come to the same conclusion and warned Blair of possible illegal
war crimes.
LESSONS FROM
CONFLICT IN
AFGHANISTAN:
Although CND had strongly and unreservedly condemned
the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the USA, it also opposed
with the same passion, the subsequent US-led military attacks
on Afghanistan and Iraq. CND believed then, as it does now, that
the USA could and will only ensure its own security by engaging
in multi-lateral negotiations with other countries to promote
global peace and justice for all. After all, the war in Afghanistan
shared several common features with the one in Iraq: each war
was led by the USA and closely supported by the UK; each was declared
to be a "war on terror"; each was presented to the world
as a war to liberate the ordinary people in each country; and
each was meant to ensure security for the USA in particular, and
the world in general. Since the end of active military operations
in Iraq, more similarities between the two wars have emerged.
For example, as in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq saw the use of
awesome military weaponry including cluster bombs and depleted
uranium against a comparatively poorly-armed country and unknown
numbers of civilians were needlessly killed. A recent report by
the US-based Human Rights Watch on Afghanistan concluded: "Far
from emerging as a stable democracy, Afghanistan remains a fractured,
undemocratic collection of "fiefdoms" in which warlords
are free to intimidate, extort and repress local populations,
while almost completely denying basic freedoms." To underline
the political and security problems in Afghanistan, last week
the interim President Hamed Kazzai threatened to resign if the
warlords do not put down their arms and co-operate with the central
government. The same week also saw a chain of seemingly well co-ordinated
terrorist attacks, which took place in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Casablanca
in Morocco and in Tel Aviv in Israel. In UK, heavy concrete slabs
have been placed around the House of Commons as protection against
possible terrorist attacks, while in East Africa six countries
have been placed on high security alert. Meanwhile, Osama bin
Laden and his deputy Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, as well Saddam
Hussein and his top officials are yet to be apprehended, or declared
dead. Most importantly, the alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
are yet to be discovered more than five weeks after the end of
the war.
SUMMARY
In order to objectively assess the lesson of
Iraq, it is necessary to ask one fundamental question: did it
achieve its objectives? Clearly, the war has so far failed comprehensively
to achieve what it was meant to deliver, namely, the disarmament
of Iraqi WMD, the liberation of Iraqi people and the democratisation
of their country. However, it has succeeded in achieving some
spectacular but un-intended outcomes both in the UK and abroad.
In the UK, it has created deep divisions within the British people,
Parliament and within the government, which suffered the resignation
of two high-profile Cabinet Ministers and five junior Ministers.
It has also left the British Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary
and the Defence Secretary facing a possible investigation by the
International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Internationally,
it has severely weakened the United Nations, created divisions
both within the Security Council in particular and the Member
States generally, thus unsettling the international order. It
has also created splits within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(NATO) allies and within the European Union. Socially, it has
heightened religious polarisation between Christian and the Muslim
communities around the world. In Iraq, it has caused wanton destruction
of civilian infrastructure and the deaths or injuries of unknown
numbers of people, mainly civilians. It has also caused the breakdown
in law and order, which led to the looting of the 700-year-old
Iraqi antiques and the theft of radioactive materials from Iraqi
nuclear research centres. In summary, the war in Iraq has left
the Middle East region in particular and the world in general
more insecure than it has ever been before.
CONCLUSION
If the war in Iraq has taught us any lesson
at all, it must be about the futility of trying to achieve the
disarmament of weapons of mass destruction through unilateral
and pre-emptive military attacks against selective countries.
It was therefore with deep regret that CND read the speech by
the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which was delivered
at the Centre for European Reform on 19 May. He said:
"Since 11 September, all EU Member States
recognise that the world has entered a dangerous new era. And
we would all agree that the threats to our security—from
terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and chaos and contagion
from failing states—may in extremis require a military response."
This statement indicates that the UK has not
learned any lesson from the failure of pre-emptive military attacks
on Iraq and is leaving open the prospect of the use of similar
attacks as a tool of attempted disarmament.
CND calls on the Defence Select Committee to
remind the Government to recognise and honour its obligation under
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), particularly the final
statement of the 2000 Review and Extension Conference in which
the UK and the four other declared nuclear weapons states gave
an "unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination
of their nuclear arsenals". They also committed themselves
to a programme of 13 practical steps to achieve this goal. Therefore,
the government must not only honour this commitment, but also
abandon the selective use of military force as a disarmament policy
and support non-discriminatory disarmament under the United Nations.
This, in CND's view, is the only way to ensure peace and security
for the British people and internationally.
|
