A rchive Date
[ 01-06-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/goldstein_jun1.html
Chretien on Saddam: Why the abrupt u-turn?
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN -- Toronto Sun
June 1, 2003
It's interesting that Jean Chretien seems to be almost gloating over the fact the U.S. hasn't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - so far.
Interesting because of his absolute certainty that Iraq possessed those weapons in 1998, and his total support for a U.S.-led military strike against Saddam Hussein at the time.
Consider Chretien's remarks to the Commons on Feb. 9, 1998, during a debate on whether to support this attack, which Sun reader Hugh Crosthwait was kind enough to bring to my attention.
- "The goal that we all have is to make sure that Saddam Hussein respects the resolutions of the UN and stops the production of armaments like biological weapons and so on that are extremely dangerous. We have proof that they were producing it and are still producing them, and we want to terminate this production. It is extremely dangerous for countries around the world if we do not stop Saddam Hussein with this production."
- "In order to have (Saddam) change his position, we have to show with determination that if he does not change his position, we will be there to make sure that he stops the production of this absolutely unacceptable armament he is building at this time."
- "Saddam Hussein signed a ceasefire agreement and now he is not complying with it. We therefore have the authority to proceed, under the 1991 (United Nations) resolution, which Saddam is not complying with."
- "There comes a time when we must say to Saddam Hussein 'respect the obligation that you took in 1991 or else.' We are getting ready to do the 'or else.' When the time comes, we must be ready to do that."
- "If there is one thing Canadians cannot abide, that is any flaunting of the clearly expressed wish of the United Nations Security Council. And if there is one question on which the Security Council has spoken out clearly, it is the threat Saddam Hussein represents to his neighbours, and the entire world, with his weapons of mass destruction ... What conclusion does this lead to about the humanity of a man who is again prepared to expose his people to this risk, merely to protect the terrible activities he is involved in to develop chemical and biological weapons?"
- "Saddam's determination to develop and use weapons of mass destruction, chemical warfare in particular, is well documented. Anyone doubting the serious character of the threat this man represents has only to recall how he turned these weapons against his own people. Equally well documented are his ongoing efforts to block the work of UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission created to ensure compliance with Security Council Resolution 687."
'Lies and deceit'
- "Saddam's lies and deceit and especially his obstructions prevent the special commission from verifying whether Iraq has indeed destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction."
- "For seven years he has lied, resisted and tried to hide the truth. He has had every opportunity to comply with international agreements and his obligations, but nothing has succeeded in getting him to comply voluntarily ... This deadly game of hide-and-seek has gone on long enough."
- "That is why, if it comes to that, we believe a military strike against Iraq would be justified to secure compliance with Security Council resolution 687 and all other Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq."
*"We believe that Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a moment. Our allies, led by the United States, have asked that we support such a mission. They have asked for military support, not for combat troops. However, it would mean a Canadian presence in the action .... It would mean our armed forces would support, in a material way, the actions of this multilateral initiative. It would mean that when and if every other means fails and action is taken to enforce the will of the Security Council, Canada will be counted. Not on the sidelines, not in isolation. This is the decision we must make. I believe the choice is clear. I believe it is a choice dictated by the responsibilities of international citizenship, by the demands of international security and by an understanding of the history of the world in this century."
As it turned out, the February attack was put off, although Bill Clinton later bombed Iraq for four nights in December, 1998, just before the U.S. House of Representatives was to begin impeachment proceedings against him. Chretien supported that strike as well, saying: "Saddam Hussein asked for it."
Leaving aside the irony of Chretien sounding in 1998, exactly like George Bush and Tony Blair in 2002 and 2003, the real question is what caused him to do a 180-degree turnaround. What did he know in 2003 that he didn't know in 1998 when he told the Commons "we have proof" of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? Why was Chretien willing to give weapons inspections more time in 2003 but not in 1998?
Was he acting on principle? Polls? Did he simply prefer Clinton to Bush? Bush and Blair will have a lot of explaining to do if no evidence of Iraq's WMD is found, since disarming Iraq was their main justification for launching the war.
But, considering his own comments in 1998, it seems rather foolish of Chretien to be gloating now.
Lorrie can be reached at (416) 947-2212, by fax at (416) 947-3228 or by e-mail at lorrie.goldstein@tor.sunpub.com. Or visit his home page. Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|