Who's Online

We have 502 guests online


4066 readings
Canada's Iraq War Profiteers and the CANSEC Arms Bazaar PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Tuesday, 28 April 2009 08:54

Canada's Iraq War Profiteers and the CANSEC Arms Bazaar

PEJ News - COAT News - Richard Sanders -- The Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT), a Canadian anti-war network based in Ottawa, has published a detailed report exposing Canadian corporate complicity in the Iraq War. This report is called "Profiting from the Slaughter of Innocents in Iraq:


CANSEC – warfare exhibit in Ottawa : Ottawa defies international law
- Joan Russow (PhD)
Global Compliance Research Project

Yet again Ottawa is defying international law in hosting CANSEC.

Reallocation of military expenses

In 1976 at Habitat 1, a UN conference in Vancouver member states of the United Nations affirmed the following in relation to the military budgets and armaments:

"The waste and misuse of resources in war and armaments should be prevented. All countries should make a firm commitment to promote general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, in particular in the field of nuclear disarmament. Part of the resources thus released should be utilized so as to achieve a better quality of life for humanity and particularly for the peoples of developing countries" (II, 12 Habitat 1).

This commitment was continually reinforced over the years through various resolutions at the UN General Assembly and in 1992, at the UN Conference on the Environment Development All members states of the UN made a commitment to reallocate military expenses.

There have been 33 years of procrastination and now the current global military budget is over 1.7 Trillion, and AN increasing, amount is being spent on armaments.

If we want to reduce the production of armaments we must call for substantial reduction of the military budgets

War machine arsenals exhibitions are continuing to occur with impunity and increasing perfidy

While governments over the years through various Geneva Protocols and other conventions have incurred obligations related to armaments, corporations through sympathetic governments have continued to produce weapons systems that violate government obligations. 
For example
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

In 1977, established basic rules related to armaments:

 Art 35. Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare, which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

These provisions, if enforced, would end the production of armaments and close down this exhibition:

Also in the additional Geneva protocol there are imposed limitations on the development of new weapons. Under Article 36, which reads.

Art 36. New weapons

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapons, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting . ie governments. are under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.

In 1980, member states of the United Nations negotiated the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects

Again the enforcement of this provision would justify the closing down of this exhibition

CANSEC will be yet again profiling an arsenal
that will be excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects; and  through the actions of these military dealers, governments  are controvening the above convention

Also rather than preventing the production and use of cluster bombs,  countries that have aggressively intervened in other countries  have used them
After numerous studies related to the impact of cluster bombs, in  2008 a legally binding international instrument that prohibits the use and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians and requires  clearance of contaminated areas». Was adopted.

How many of latest armaments in this exhibition will be prohibited in the future; once their dire consequences materialize

Governments must invoke the precautionary principle and embark upon prohibiting the production of all these armaments 

They do not have to wait there is scientific certainty that dire consequences of the weapon systems materialize   to prohibit the production, exhibition and use of these armaments such as trident fury on the West Coast –  to war games including NATO war games.

 These expressions of militarism could and must be declared to be “propaganda for war”
Under the International human rights instrument – the International Covenant, of Civil and Political Rights negotiated in 1966,  has been signed and ratified by most countries including Canada and the US.

All governments incurred an obligation reflected in this statement  “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law (Art. 20, International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966)

Governments must discharge their obligation under the covenant to prohibit the propaganda for war, thus to prohibit all war games, all nuclear ship visits and all production and exhibition of armaments.

Last Updated on Saturday, 28 February 2015 20:38

Latest News