| ||||||
|
Home | |
Join Now | |
CND Shop | |
|
| ||||||
|
March 2003 See also: CND calls on all the parties to the conflict to refrain from using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, including in reprisal. CND also calls on the parties to the conflict to refrain from using anti-personnel landmines, cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons. CND believes that this is an immoral and illegal war on the people of Iraq. CND deeply regrets all casualties in the war on Iraq irrespective of nationality. War will cause a humanitarian catastrophe. It is not an effective way of dealing with weapons of mass destruction. It increases the risk that these weapons may be used. Options for disarming Iraq peacefully have not been given time to work. Tony Blair is isolated. His backing for Bush does not represent the views of the British people. The war with Iraq does not have international backing and has not been sanctioned by the United Nations. CND is opposed to all weapons of mass destruction. CND campaigned in the 1980s against the Iraqi regime’s use of chemical weapons against the people of Halabja, but the British Government continues to supply arms to Iraq. CND believes that the possession or use weapons of mass destruction cannot be justified in any circumstances. The most effective way of dealing with weapons of mass destruction is to strengthen the international treaties on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. War will cause a humanitarian catastropheBritain’s leading aid agencies warn that military action against Iraq could trigger a major humanitarian disaster.(1) Medical experts estimate that anywhere from 48,000 to over 250,000 people could be killed within 3 months of the start of war. If the US uses nuclear weapons the death toll could reach 3,900,000. In all scenarios the majority of casualties will be civilians.(2) War will have a devastating impact on the lives, health and environment of the combatants, Iraqi civilians, and people in neighbouring countries and beyond. It could also damage the global economy and thus indirectly harm the health and well-being of millions more people across the world. A report leaked from the UN calculates that about 500,000 could require medical treatment as a result of injuries, whilst the “nutritional status of some 3.03 million people will be dire and they will require therapeutic feeding”. About 80% of these people will be children under 5. War will also cause at least 900,000 refugees to go to Iran, whilst 2 million more could be displaced internally in Iraq. (3) War will also cause lasting damage to the environment, especially if nuclear weapons are used or if oil wells are set on fire as happened during the last Gulf War. War increases the risk that Weapons of Mass Destruction may be usedWar with Iraq greatly increases the risk that instead of being disarmed, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction may be used. Use of chemical or biological weapons could cause a death toll of up to 21,000. But Iraq is not the only party with weapons of mass destruction. The US and Britain will not rule out the possibility of using their nuclear weapons against Iraq.(4) In response to questions in the House of Commons on 3 March 2003 on whether the Government would rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the Gulf, British Secretary of State for Defence Geoff Hoon MP refused to comment.(5) The US has reportedly been considering options for using non-lethal chemical agents in Iraq such as calmatives, sticky foams, slipping agents and corrosives, although the use of such weapons in war is banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).(6) US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that in the event of war the US President could waive restrictions on the use of these weapons.(7) Former UN chief weapons inspector, Richard Butler accuses the US of “shocking double standards” on Iraq. According to Butler: “The spectacle of the United States, armed with its weapons of mass destruction, acting without Security Council authority to invade a country in the heartland of Arabia and, if necessary, use its weapons of mass destruction to win that battle, is something that will so deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I strongly suspect it could set loose forces that we would deeply live to regret.”(8) In 1996 the International Court of Justice ruled that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. Use of nuclear weapons would generally breach all of the following: • Declaration of St. Petersburg, 1868
because unnecessary suffering would be caused and there would be no avoidance
or minimising of incidental loss of civilian life; Options for Disarming Iraq peacefully have not been given time to workThe conflict with Iraq has been driven by the Pentagon’s timetable for military action before the Iraqi summer. Bush and Blair set artificial deadlines for Security Council action and Iraqi compliance. Options for disarming Iraq peacefully have not been tried and weapons inspectors were not given time to complete their tasks. Alternatives such as France’s proposal for strengthening the inspections work were rejected out of hand by the US and Britain, along with Canada’s proposal for bridging the divisions in the UN Security Council. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC (the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection
Commission), Dr Hans Blix said that even with Iraqi cooperation, “it
would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents,
interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years,
nor weeks, but months.”(10) War is not an effective way to Disarm IraqMilitary strikes are not an effective way to deal with weapons of mass destruction. War increases the risk that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction may be used or transferred to military leaders or terrorists. Bombing chemical, biological or nuclear facilities could be catastrophic. As former Assistant Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Timothy Garden writes,
“The consequences of war are always unpredictable, and usually less
benign for all concerned than has been hoped.” (13) Tackling Weapons of Mass DestructionThe Government claims that it is going to war to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but US war aims such as “regime change” have no legal basis under the UN Charter. The Government has yet to provide convincing evidence either that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or that Iraq has links with Al-Qaeda or that Iraq poses a threat to the UK. Blair and Bush claim that they are trying to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but the US and Britain are doing more to undermine the treaties that control WMD than to strengthen them. The US and Britain claim to support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but they have not complied with their obligations to nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the Treaty, which requires the elimination of nuclear weapons. The US and Britain are members of the Chemical Weapons Convention, but the US has withheld funds from the Convention’s implementing body, reducing its ability to conduct inspections and chemical weapons facilities and to fill staff posts. The US and Britain are members of the Biological Weapons Convention, but Blair has remained silent while the US blocks efforts to verify the Convention to pursue its own “biodefence” programmes. CND campaigned against arms sales to Iraq in the 1980s following the Iraqi regime’s use of chemical weapons in its war with Iran and against the people of Halabja. However, Britain continued to sell arms to Iraq. It is now well documented that the US and Britain sold Iraq the technology and the infrastructure for its chemical and biological weapons. The US and the UK sell arms to India and Pakistan although these countries are not members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the US provides extensive military assistance to Israel although it has nuclear weapons and is in breach of numerous UN resolutions. The US and Britain claim that Iraq has failed to implement disarmament commitments made in previous UN Security Council resolutions, however, no attempt has been made to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East – one of the aims of Security Council Resolution 687 on Iraq from the end of the last Gulf War in 1991. Weapons of mass destruction cannot be controlled unilaterally or countered effectively militarily. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention must be strengthened and must be implemented fully and fairly to reduce the risk from weapons of mass destruction. Instead of conducting military strikes against Iraq to “shock and
awe”, Britain and the United States should start by implementing
their own commitments to abolish nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. End Notes (1) "War could spell disaster for the Iraqi people”,
Joint press release issued by members of the British Overseas Aid Group
(BOAG) - Oxfam, Cafod, Christian Aid, ActionAid and Save the Children,
28 January 2003,
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/whatnew/iraq/iraq28jan03.html.
• http://www.iraqconflict.org/
|
|||||||||||||||