Andrew Telegdi
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Dear Mr. Telegdi,
I am deeply concerned about a possible attack on Iraq. As outlined on the attached page, I do not believe that this war meets the criterion for a "just war", and therefore our participation in any manner would be morally reprehensible.
I would like you to commit to sitting as an independent if Canada participates in a war with Iraq without UN approval. I also believe that it is highly unlikely that the criterion for a just war will be met. If they are not, I ask you to sit as an independent even if the UN approves an attack and Canada participates.
I realize the difficult position this would put you in politically, but the number of lives at stake are many tens of times greater than those who died in the Sept. 11th attack. If we participate in an unjust war, no matter by whom it is sanctioned, the resulting deaths are our responsibility.
Thank you,
Clayton Grassick
48 Avondale Ave. S.
Waterloo, ON N2L 2B8
Canada
Phone: +1 (519) 725-4074
Email: ...
The following are the commonly accepted necessary criteria for what is known as a "just war".
Jus ad bellum (criteria for the justice of going to war):
1. Just cause: For a war to be just, it must be a
response to clear aggression by a foreign power across established international
boundaries.
Iraq has not launched an international attack which could justify a war. Further, they have specifically denied having chemical or nuclear weapons.
Even under the scenario that some chemical weapons are found, a war is still not justified, as we would currently be invading Pakistan if it were. They have a dictatorship, nuclear weapons, and a first-strike policy.
2. Just intention: Even if there is a just cause,
the "just cause" may not be used as a pretext to seek other objectives (for
example, to serve economic or neo-imperialist interests).
The fact that other countries with even more flagrant violations of international law have not been targeted or even mentioned is a strong indication that our intentions with Iraq are not impartial.
3. Legitimate authority: The response to
aggression must be ordered (or invited) by the lawful authority of the nation
that suffered aggression--or by a legitimate international authority.
The U.S. alone is certainly not a legitimate authority. If the UN does not approve an attack, we absolutely must not participate in any way.
4. Last resort: All possible efforts at
negotiation must have been attempted before violence is justified.
This is by no means a war of last resort. The weapons inspectors have said that they need at least a year to complete their work. Even if weapons are found, there is no indication that an invasion is the only way to stop them from being used.
5. Announcement: Prior to war, there must be
an announcement of the intention to begin hostilities along with the stipulation
of reasonable conditions under which the hostilities can still be avoided.
The initial conditions that were laid down (i.e. cooperation with inspectors) have been followed. An indication of the unreasonableness of recent conditions is the U.S. statement that the very absence of discovered chemical weapons is in of itself non-cooperation. This is clearly absurd.
6. Reasonable hope of success: No war is just if there is not a reasonable hope for achieving the objectives of the war.
The last war was unable to dispose of Saddam Hussein, and was fought at the cost of over 100,000 lives by many estimates.