For the record: 60 Canadian MPs said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was legitimate

“U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf are vital to the national security. These interests include access to oil and the security and stability of key friendly states in the region. The United States will defend its vital interests in the area, through the use of U.S. military force if necessary and appropriate, against any power with interests inimical to our own.”
– President George H.W. Bush, National Security Directive 45: U.S. Policy in Response to the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait, August 20, 1990

“The crisis between the United States and Iraq that led to the declaration of a national emergency on August 2, 1990, has not been resolved. The Government of Iraq continues to engage in activities inimical to stability in the Middle East and hostile to U.S. interests. Such Iraqi actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Iraq and to maintain in force the broad authorities necessary to apply economic pressure on the Government of Iraq.”
– President George W. Bush, Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, July 30, 2002

“We firmly believe that this intervention is legal under international law.”

“It is unfortunate, but it is now up to our allies, our historical allies, namely the Americans and the British, to act. We support their action.”
– Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance, House of Commons, March 20, 2003

On March 25, 2003, under the pretext of enforcing compliance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, 60 Canadian MPs voted in favour of a Canadian Alliance motion asking the House of Commons to “recognize the legitimacy of the decision” of the U.S.-led coalition to invade Iraq and overthrow its government. [See the vote below].

This is despite the fact that the invasion was illegal under international law.

The goal of U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was regime change. This has been U.S. policy since October 31, 1998, when then-President Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act. The United States was looking for regime change when Operation Desert Storm began a few years earlier. National Security Directive 54, signed by President George H.W. Bush on January 15, 1991, stated: “Should Iraq resort to using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, be found supporting terrorist acts against U.S. or coalition partners anywhere in the world, or destroy Kuwait’s oil fields, it shall become an explicit objective of the United States to replace the current leadership of Iraq.”

An October 3, 2002, Report for Congress by the Congressional Research Service (Iraq: U.S. Efforts to Change the Regime; RL31339) confirmed America’s long standing goal of regime change in Iraq:

“The United States has been attempting to change Iraq’s regime since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, although achieving this goal was not declared policy until 1998. In November 1998, amid a crisis with Iraq over U.N. weapons of mass destruction (WMD) inspections, the Clinton Administration stated that the United States would seek to go beyond containment to promoting a change of regime. A regime change policy was endorsed by the Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338, October 31, 1998). Bush Administration officials have emphasized regime change as the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward Iraq. This paper discusses past and current U.S. efforts to oust Saddam Hussein and the current debate over the implementation of that policy.”

Regime change, however, cannot be the basis for military action.

An October 2, 2002, statement by the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy provides a clear and concise argument why the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Founded in 1981, the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) is a national nonprofit educational association, based in New York City, that uses national and international law to promote peace and disarmament. LCNP has been a vital link between policy makers, legal scholars and activists.

The following excerpt is from the LCNP four-page statement:

“The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such forms part of the “supreme law of the land” under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states’ conflicting obligations under any other international agreement. (Art. 103, UN Charter)”

“Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exist. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful.”

“The application of the basic law regarding self-defense to the present U.S. confrontation with Iraq is straightforward. Iraq has not attacked any state, nor is there any showing whatever that an attack by Iraq is imminent. Therefore self-defense does not justify the use of force against Iraq by the United States or any state.”

“There is no basis in international law for dramatically expanding the concept of selfdefense, as advocated in the Bush administration's September 2002 "National Security Strategy," to authorize "preemptive" - really preventive - strikes against states based on potential threats arising from possession or development of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and links to terrorism. Such an expansion would destabilize the present system of UN Charter restraints on use of force. Further, there is no claim or publicly disclosed evidence that Iraq is supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.”

“The Bush administration's reliance on the need for “regime change” in Iraq as a basis for use of force is barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.””

“Any claim that “material breach” of cease fire obligations by Iraq justifies use of force by the United States is unavailing. The Gulf War was a Security Council authorized action, not a state versus state conflict; accordingly, it is for the Security Council to determine whether there has been a material breach and whether such breach requires renewed use of force.”

The Bush Doctrine, which promotes military preemption, military superiority and unilateral action, is laid out in The National Security Strategy of the United States America (Sept. 2002), one of the most disturbing documents prepared by the Bush Administration. It provided the framework for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The doctrine, however, is outside international law.

On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Hans Blix, Executive Chairman, United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), appeared before the UN Security Council to report their latest findings of inspections in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

“After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq,” said Mr. ElBaradei.

Responding to allegations of weapons of mass destruction being moved around Iraq by truck Dr. Blix said, “No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.”

The Bush Administration’s pretext for going to war was slowly being stripped away.

In Britain, on that same day, Attorney-General Lord Peter Henry Goldsmith advised Prime Minister Tony Blair that, “…regime change cannot be the objective of military action.”

The secret memo, dated March 7, 2003, was leaked to the British press in April 2005. Goldsmith also noted:

“…the UK has consistently taken the view that, as the cease-fire conditions were set by the Security Council in resolution 687 [1991], it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred. The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the fact of whether Iraq is in breach is a matter of objective fact which may therefore be assessed by individual Member States [but] I am not aware of any other state which supports this view.”

“I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further [UN Security Council] resolution to authorize the use of force.”

“The argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider extremely carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.”

The hard evidence never came. In time, every pretext for war that the Bush Administration had concocted collapsed.

Other documents, known as the “Downing Street Memo(s),” revealed that Prime Minister Blair had told President Bush in April 2002, when the two met in Crawford, Texas, that “the UK would support military action to bring about regime change.” The British also felt that it would be “necessary to create the conditions” in which it “could legally support military action.”

On September 16, 2004, in an interview with Owen Bennett-Jones for BBC World Service at UN headquarters in New York, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the U.S.-led invasion, from the UN’s point of view “was illegal.”

Based on Congressional appropriations the U.S. taxpayer cost of the Iraq War is approaching $370-billion, a figure that wildly exceeds the Bush administration’s $50-$60 billion pre-war estimate. Confirmed U.S. military deaths have now surpassed 3,100.

Since the illegal invasion, the Pentagon has been constructing “superbases” in Balad, al-Asad, Tallil and al-Qayyarah. Some of these facilities are so big they include neighbourhoods, bus routes, fast food outlets and car dealerships.

A massive U.S. embassy, the largest in the world, is nearing completion in Bagdhad. The 104-acre complex, surrounded by 15-foot blast walls, rivals The Vatican in size. It includes 619 apartment units, gym, swimming pool, barber and beauty shops, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants. The builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, is using low-wage imported workers and has been accused of labour trafficking and worker abuse. The cost: $592-million.

Iran and Iraq have the second and third largest proved oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. The United States is the largest oil consuming nation in the world. There is little doubt that access to and control of oil in the Persian Gulf is at the forefront of U.S. policy.

On May 22, 2003, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order No. 13303, which decreed that “any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void,” with respect to the “Development Fund for Iraq, and all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.”

In other words, U.S. oil companies are essentially free to do whatever they want in Iraq and are immune from legal proceedings in the United States.

On January 7, 2007, The Independent on Sunday (IoS) reported on a new draft law “that would give Western oil companies a massive share” in Iraq’s oil reserves.

According to the IoS:

“…under a system known as “production-sharing agreements”, or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.”

“PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries.”

“Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come.”

“…the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.”

On January 18, 2007, the Iraqi Oil Ministry said the law was nearly ready to be submitted to the Cabinet and that it might be ratified by parliament within a month.

The United States’ presence in Iraq will surely be a permanent one.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Journals
No. 76
Monday, March 24, 2003

Canadian Alliance MPs Stockwell Day and Rahim Jaffer

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) moved:

That this House:

(1) endorse the decision of the Allied international coalition of military forces to enforce Iraq’s compliance with its international obligations under successive resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, with a view to restoring international peace and security in the Middle East region;

(2) express its unequivocal support for the Canadian service men and women, and other personnel serving in an exchange program with the United States and for those service men and women performing escort duties for British and United States’ ships, our full confidence in them and the hope that all will return safely to their homes;

(3) extend to the innocent people of Iraq its support and sympathy during the military action to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and the reconstruction period that will follow; and

(4) urge the government to commit itself to help the Iraqi people, including through humanitarian assistance, to build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbours.


Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):

Since my time is up, I would like to offer an amendment. I move: That the motion be amended in the first paragraph by replacing the words “endorse the decision” with the words “recognize the legitimacy of the decision” and by inserting after the word “security” the words “including justice”.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I find the amendment to be in order.

The Deputy Speaker: It being 6:15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the vote stands deferred until Tuesday, March 25 at 3 p.m.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Journals
No. 77
Tuesday, March 25, 2003

The House resumed from March 24, 2003, consideration of the motion and the amendment.

The Speaker: It being 3.00 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla on the business of supply.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 63)

YEAS – 60 NAYS – 181

The following 60 Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative MPs voted in favour of the amendment:

Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia) Canadian Alliance

Rob Anders (Calgary West) Canadian Alliance

David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) Canadian Alliance

Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain) Canadian Alliance

Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls) Progressive Conservative

Leon Benoit (Lakeland) Canadian Alliance

Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris) Progressive Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Canadian Alliance

Andy Burton (Skeena) Canadian Alliance

David Chatters (Athabasca) Canadian Alliance

Joe Clark (Calgary Centre) Progressive Conservative

John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond) Canadian Alliance

Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla) Canadian Alliance

John Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp (Elk Island) Canadian Alliance

Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert) Canadian Alliance

Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby) Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke) Canadian Alliance

Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East) Canadian Alliance

Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan) Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central) Canadian Alliance

Deborah Grey (Edmonton North) Canadian Alliance

Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast) Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest) Canadian Alliance

Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley) Canadian Alliance

Loyola Hearn (St. John's West) Progressive Conservative

John Herron (Fundy—Royal) Progressive Conservative

Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill (Macleod) Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake) Canadian Alliance

Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys) Canadian Alliance

Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona) Canadian Alliance

Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin) Canadian Alliance

Gerald Keddy (South Shore) Progressive Conservative

Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Canadian Alliance

Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands) Canadian Alliance

James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni) Canadian Alliance

Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin) Canadian Alliance

Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley) Canadian Alliance

Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead) Canadian Alliance

James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam) Canadian Alliance

Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East) Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson (Peace River) Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest) Canadian Alliance

Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton) Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast) Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster) Canadian Alliance

Werner Schmidt (Kelowna) Canadian Alliance

Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Canadian Alliance

Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat) Canadian Alliance

Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot) Canadian Alliance

Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre) Canadian Alliance

Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap) Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley) Canadian Alliance

Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Progressive Conservative

Myron Thompson (Wild Rose) Canadian Alliance

Elsie Wayne (Saint John) Progressive Conservative

Ted White (North Vancouver) Canadian Alliance

Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford) Canadian Alliance

John Williams (St. Albert) Canadian Alliance

The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.

[English]

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 64)

YEAS – 60 NAYS – 183

The following 60 Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative MPs voted in favour of the motion:

Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia) Canadian Alliance

Rob Anders (Calgary West) Canadian Alliance

David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands) Canadian Alliance

Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain) Canadian Alliance

Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls) Progressive Conservative

Leon Benoit (Lakeland) Canadian Alliance

Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris) Progressive Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) Canadian Alliance

Andy Burton (Skeena) Canadian Alliance

David Chatters (Athabasca) Canadian Alliance

Joe Clark (Calgary Centre) Progressive Conservative

John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond) Canadian Alliance

Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla) Canadian Alliance

John Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp (Elk Island) Canadian Alliance

Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert) Canadian Alliance

Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby) Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke) Canadian Alliance

Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East) Canadian Alliance

Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan) Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central) Canadian Alliance

Deborah Grey (Edmonton North) Canadian Alliance

Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast) Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest) Canadian Alliance

Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley) Canadian Alliance

Loyola Hearn (St. John's West) Progressive Conservative

John Herron (Fundy—Royal) Progressive Conservative

Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River) Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill (Macleod) Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake) Canadian Alliance

Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys) Canadian Alliance

Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona) Canadian Alliance

Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin) Canadian Alliance

Gerald Keddy (South Shore) Progressive Conservative

Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Canadian Alliance

Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands) Canadian Alliance

James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni) Canadian Alliance

Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin) Canadian Alliance

Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley) Canadian Alliance

Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead) Canadian Alliance

James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam) Canadian Alliance

Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East) Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson (Peace River) Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest) Canadian Alliance

Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton) Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast) Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster) Canadian Alliance

Werner Schmidt (Kelowna) Canadian Alliance

Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar) Canadian Alliance

Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat) Canadian Alliance

Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot) Canadian Alliance

Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre) Canadian Alliance

Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap) Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley) Canadian Alliance

Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest) Progressive Conservative

Myron Thompson (Wild Rose) Canadian Alliance

Elsie Wayne (Saint John) Progressive Conservative

Ted White (North Vancouver) Canadian Alliance

Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford) Canadian Alliance

John Williams (St. Albert) Canadian Alliance

The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.