Afghanistan -a victim of US revenge and the "take note but no vote" Conservative policy. Print
Peace News
Tuesday, 11 April 2006 01:34
Afghanistan -a victim of US revenge and the "take note but no vote" Conservative policy.

The Canadian government is continuing to support the US act of revenge against Afghanistan.
Re: ?take note but no vote? Conservative government.
The Canadian government is continuing to support the US act of revenge against Afghanistan.

Already the Conservatives have violated a commitment made in the Speech from the throne: the Commitment to consult with parliament prior to taking positions on international issues. The ?take note but no vote? policy perpetuates the vacuous consultation exercises that governments have undertaken with civil society. For years feigned consultation processes have been engaged in with civil society; often after the decision has already been made, or after narrow terms of reference have been established.

In the debate, the Conservatives were continually suggesting that the invasion of Afghanistan was sanctioned by the United Nations. The UN Security Council never supported the invasion of Afghanistan; thus under international law it was an illegal act of aggression.

The US used Article 51- self defence- in the UN Charter to attempt to justify the invasion. Few lawyers would agree that the international criteria for invoking self defense would have been met.

Canada?s participation in the invasion was an act of appeasement to the US for Canada?s decision not to join the ?coalition of the coerced ? in Iraq.

I wrote this comment in September 2001:

20 September 2001

Rule of international law and global justice, not revenge, must prevail

Joan Russow PhD
Global Compliance Research Project
Victoria, BC. Canada

In the face of human disaster, the calls for revenge and retribution are predictable but these calls should be resisted. The rule of international law, must be respected. For too long many member states of the United Nations have failed to respect the International Court of Justice in the Hague. States like the US have refused to accept the jurisdiction of the international Court, and when the US does accept the jurisdiction, the US refuses to accept the decision of the court (1988 ruling against the US planting land mines in Nicaragua). In 1999, ten NATO countries including Canada and the US refused to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice when Yugoslavia brought the NATO countries to the Court for violation of international law.

The United States should demand justice through international law, rather than perpetuate the cycle of revenge. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Manley in question period Wednesday September 19, claimed that there was no recourse through international law because the International Criminal Court proposal has not yet received the 60 signatures required for its implementation. The US is one of the countries that has refused to sign. On the other hand the international Court of Justice has existed for over 50 years and is responsible for hearing cases brought to it by member states of the UN.

Francis Boyle, an American specialist in international law, is supporting the use of the International Court of Justice. He affirms the following:

"The 1971 Montreal Sabotage Convention is directly on point here, and provides a comprehensive framework for dealing with the current dispute between the United States and Afghanistan over the tragic events of 11 September 2001. Both States are contracting parties to the Montreal Sabotage Convention, together with 173 other States in the World . The United States is under an absolute obligation to resolve this dispute with Afghanistan in a peaceful manner as required by UN Charter Article 2(3) and Article 33 as well as by the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, as well as in accordance with the requirements of the Montreal Sabotage Convention -- all of which treaties bind most of the States of the World. In addition, the United States should offer to submit this entire dispute to the International Court of Justice in The Hague (the so-called World Court) on the basis of the Montreal Sabotage Convention, and should ask the Government of Afghanistan to withdraw its Reservation to World Court jurisdiction as permitted by article 14(3) of the Montreal Sabotage Convention.?

Last Updated on Thursday, 30 July 2015 09:37