Who's Online

We have 265 guests online

Popular

2587 readings
Heinbecker interview on the current: possibly misrepresentation and historical revisionism PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Monday, 10 November 2008 00:26
Heinbecker interview on the current: possibly misrepresentation and historical revisionism
 

PEJ News - Joan Russow - The role that Canada undertook was to attempt to get a unanimous United Nations Security Counci (UNSC) resolution which would have, if Iraq had not complied, sanctioned military intervention but to delay it until March 26.. If the UNSC had agreed to the Canadian Proposal, the result would have been that the invasion by international law (not moral law) deemed legal, and Canada would have been involved. From what I gather Canada lobbied very strongly to have its draft of the UNSC resolution accepted. Fortunately, Canada's document was rejected by other states.
I was at the UN around the time of Hans Blix' presentation in March 2003. The Canadian government had decided that it would only intervene in Iraq if the invasion were sanctioned by the UN Security Council (UNSC). Around March 6, 2003, along with other Canadian NGOs, I met with the Deputy Ambassador of Canada and saw the document that Canada was circulating to the UNSC. In this document Canada supported the US claim that the term "serious consequences in the November UNSC resolution was equivalent to "being seized of the matter" ie military intervention. The November UNSC resolution had stated that if Iraq did not comply there would be "serious Consequences".

In the unanimous November resolution it was clearly understood by Russia (personal communication) and Syria that "serious consequences" for Iraq's non compliance would not justify UNSC's sanctioning of a military invasion. I pointed out to the Deputy Ambassador, at that time, that Canada was misrepresenting the term "serious consequences" and that this term did not necessarily sanction military intervention. There were other possibilities such as going to the International Court of Justice or calling an emergency session of the UN General Assembly. From November up to the invasion, there was an international campaign to invoke the 1951 "Uniting for Peace resolution". This resolution, if invoked, would result in an emergency session of the UN General Assembly.

The US sent around an intimidating letter to all members of the UN General Assembly. Chile went public and revealed the contents of the letter. The role that Canada undertook was to attempt to get a unanimous UNSC resolution which would have sanctioned military intervention but within two weeks. If the UNSC had agreed to the Canadian Proposal, and if Iraq did not comply by March 28, the result would have been that the invasion by international law (not moral law) deemed legal, and Canada would have been involved.

From what I gather Canada lobbied very strongly to have its draft of the UNSC resolution accepted. Fortunately, Canada's document was rejected by other states.Heinbecker, circulated the paper which was entitled
Last Updated on Monday, 27 July 2015 19:51
 

Latest News