Canada faces crucial decision on Iraq war

Canada's foreign policy experts at the Sphinx-like building known as Fort Pearson in Ottawa are burning the midnight oil these days, trying to figure out a way for the Jean Chretien government to tackle the most troubling foreign policy issue that a Canadian Prime Minister has had to face in recent times - how to respond to U.S. President George W. Bush's demand to join an international coalition to wage Gulf War II.

It is a tough choice, no question. Made tougher by the past statements of Jean Chretien and his Foreign Affairs Minister, that Canada is against going to war in Iraq. As a result, a good majority of Canadians are now firmly opposed to joining any U.S.-led coalition. But now, with the U.S. President probably only 30 days away from declaring war, and U.S. troops streaming to staging areas in and around the Gulf, Ottawa no longer has the luxury of banking on the United Nations to prevent war in Iraq.

American and British officials have rushed to discredit Baghdad's 12,000-page declaration as false, and Saddam has characteristically responded belligerently, mocking them and challenging them to show proof, heightening tensions and lending a fresh urgency to the Iraqi crisis. Bush, as to be expected, is back on the warpath, and demanding from allies like Canada that they help him to take down Saddam.

To be sure, Bush is still to make a detailed case with evidence that Iraq has indeed stockpiled chemical and biological weapons as well as prohibited delivery systems. The debate within his administration as to whether the U.S. should proceed with as broad a base of support as possible within the country and around the world, or go it alone, if such a multilateral approach is not possible, is also not over yet.

Too far to the brink

But, in the eyes of most Canadian analysts, Bush has now clearly gone too far to the brink to turn back without suffering major political damage. If he is forced to turn back, and the purported threat posed by Iraq remains along with Saddam by this time next year, he will be a toast at the next presidential election. That is why U.S. diplomats are lobbying feverishly at the United Nations and in the capitals around the world to drum up support to go the multilateral route.

This means, it is time for Canada to take a decision one way or another, whether to stand with Bush and go to war in Iraq, or stay out and run the risk of becoming a pariah in the eyes of their big brother next door. The issue is no small potatoes for Canada. Whichever way Canadians look at it, their choices are limited. There is no support for war, but whatever decision the government takes, it will have profound implications that range from things as abstract as Ottawa's desire to be a peace keeper rather than a war monger to Canada's economic survival and its standing in North America. An offended America can make life difficult for all Canadians, knock the stuffing out of their much-vaunted lifestyle with a simple nod to border control officials along the 38 parallel to hold up the flow of goods and services - and people - across the Canada-U.S. border.

Mixed signals

Of course, the steady diet of anti-American rhetoric, some of it fair and some of it not, coming out of the country's intellectual élite, mostly university academics and media pundits - coupled with mixed signals from the Prime Minister and his Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham - have not helped Canada's course. Most U.S. analysts blame the ruling Liberals for Canadians' changing perception about America, and Washington is definitely more antsy about them than ever before.

There are growing signs that indicate that Americans are now sitting up and taking notice of what Canadians are saying about them, and they are concerned. In the past, the issue of Canada opting to stay out of a U.S.-led military campaign probably would not have mattered much. Until recently, the tendency in Washington was to take Canada for granted and not get upset when Ottawa sometimes charted its own independent course on international issues, such as on the Kyoto protocol or the world court or the international treaty on banning the use of landmines, three key issues on which the Bush administration took diametrically opposite positions.

That may not be the case this time round. Bush desperately wants political cover and international legitimacy for invading Iraq, and he is looking to Ottawa to play the good sidekick role. The grubby political and diplomatic work to make this happen is already underway. In Ottawa last week was Marc Grossman, U.S. Under-secretary of State for Political Affairs, who spent a day lobbying Canadian officials, asking for help now for disarming Iraq and later during its peace keeping and reconstruction phase. However, he apparently gave no indication when war would start. He is the number three in the U.S. State Department.

The message he was carrying was that Iraq is a major threat and that the U.S. would like Canadian participation in an international coalition to undertake military action to remove that threat, if military action becomes necessary. "We would obviously like to deal with this peacefully," Grossman, said in an interview in Ottawa. "We think the best way to deal with it peacefully is to have a military coalition. That way, it may be possible to persuade Mr. Saddam Hussain to concede that he has weapons of mass destruction and disarm peacefully."

He argued that once a military coalition is organised, Saddam is likely to see the light of day and agree to disarm. "Sooner we get this coalition organised, the more likely it is that Saddam will disarm, and the less likely it is that we will actually have to use military force," Grossman added.

Canadians listened and asked questions, but made no commitments. Up until now, Canada has been insisting that U.S. must take the case against Iraq to the United Nations and obtain the endorsement of the Security Council to take military action, if military action is necessary. Bush has fulfilled the first part of that demand and UN arms inspectors are already in Iraq. There is no doubt that Ottawa remains leery about invading Iraq, but whether it still wants Security Council endorsement before any military action is taken not clear.

So far Chretien and his Foreign Affairs Minister seem to be sticking to the government's game plan of insisting that Washington make the case against Saddam and produce the evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction.

International coalition

Canadian leaders have also urged Bush to forge an international coalition under the auspices of the UN, if he really wanted to move against Baghdad. Whether this position has changed in the face of U.S. charges that Baghdad has failed once again to come clean in its declaration, there is no definite word yet.

But there are indications that that policy may be about to change. Canadian policy, after all, has much to do with relations with the United States as the threat of Iraq. Both the Deputy Prime Minister John Manley and Foreign Affairs Minister Graham have started dropping hints that Canada may be reassessing its position. The ministers said last week that Canada would be prepared to back the United States move to launch military action, if Iraq continues its obstinacy.

With most Canadians still bristling on cue at any hint of U.S. 'unilateralism,' Ottawa is unlikely to broadcast any change for another four weeks at least. It appears the government is waiting for some political cover in the shape of a failing grade for Iraq in the next report of Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, which is due on January 27. If the report is adverse, as it seems likely in