Irwin Cotler

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will organize my remarks around two basic themes: first, UN Security Council resolution 1441 as the legal framework for the determination of Iraqi cooperation and compliance with its disarmament obligations under the resolution; as the legal framework for the determination of whether there has been a material breach of these obligations; the determination of the serious consequences that would result from such a material breach; and as the background frame of reference for this motion and the appreciation of the merits of this motion; and second, the international juridical principle of the exhaustion of all remedies short of war as a precondition for military action; and again, as a background frame of reference for the appreciation of this motion.

Let me begin with some basic truths respecting the oft-cited, but apparently not well read, UN Security Council resolution 1441. For what is not sufficiently appreciated is that the UN Security Council, in this resolution, had already determined “that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, in particular through its failure to cooperate with UN inspectors and the IAEA”, since the enactment of UN resolution 687 in 1991.

Accordingly, the United Nations Security Council decided by resolution 1441 to afford Iraq one final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations by setting up what it called an “enhanced inspection regime” with the aim of “bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process”, and resolved that any false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq, or failure by Iraq at any time to cooperate and comply with implementation of this resolution “shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment”, and that Iraq would face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.

On January 27 chief weapons inspector Hans Blix reported that Iraq “appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament which was demanded of it” in the course of submitting a comprehensive and critical 15 page catalogue of Iraq's failure to demonstrate with documents, interviews and other evidence, that it had eliminated its prohibited weapons program, particularly chemical and biological weapons.

The United Kingdom concluded at that point that Iraq was in material breach of the UN resolution. President Bush, in his state of the union address, concluded that Iraq's intent was “not to disarm but to deceive”.

Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell disclosed telephone intercepts, satellite photos, and statements from Iraqi defectors which he characterized as “irrefutable” and “undeniable evidence” about Iraq's alleged and illegal weapons program, its attempts to hide these weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

In conclusion on this first theme, it would appear both from a reading of the report by Dr. Hans Blix, let alone the evidence submitted by Secretary of State Powell yesterday, that there is prima facie evidence in the form of witness testimony and documentary evidence of a material breach of UN Security Council resolution 1441.

However, what appears to be missed here is that what has to be determined at this point is that it is the UN Security Council that has to make the determination, based upon witness testimony and whatever documentary evidence is put before it, as to whether there is a material breach. It is similarly up to the UN Security Council to then determine the serious consequences that would ensue in light of this finding.

In a word, it is for the UN Security Council and the UN Security Council alone, not any other interlocutors, however compelling their evidence may be, to determine whether there has been a material breach of UN Security Council resolution 1441 as a finding of fact, and whether serious consequences including military action would follow as a conclusion of law.

Indeed, even U.S. President Bush, in his initial request for the convening of the meeting yesterday of the UN Security Council and for the production of evidence of material breached before it, appears to appreciate the legal authority of the UN Security Council in this matter.

This brings me to my second theme, the bedrock legal principle that requires that all remedies short of war be exhausted if resorting to war is to be sanctioned.

I would submit that all remedies short of war have yet to be exhausted. In particular, and having regard to the Blix report, even leaving aside Secretary of State Powell's submission yesterday, I would recommend that the following approaches be pursued and which have been made more compelling by Secretary of State Powell's submission.

First, the inspection team should be further enhanced, both in terms of personnel going from 120 to at least 360 and in terms of physical resources such as an additional office in the southern city of Basra. Second, Iraq must make a complete and exhaustive inventory of concerns regarding weapons capacity.

The 1,200 page dossier that was to be Iraq's “full, final and complete declaration” was utterly flawed. Iraq, as per the Blix report, must account for, and this is again without reference to Secretary of State Powell's submission yesterday: thousands of tonnes of chemical precursors, thousands of litres of biological warfare agents, thousands of missing chemical munitions, the unaccounted for Scud missiles, the missing weaponized VX poison, the disappeared mobile biological laboratories, the missing and deadly anthrax, and the violations on the restrictions of ballistic missiles. Iraq must provide the necessary and verifiable responses to these and other disarmament concerns posed by Dr. Blix who also spoke of a capability that his team could have for these purposes.

Third, Iraq must permit unfettered access to the dozens of skilled scientists who are at the core of the Iraqi weapons program. Their witness testimony is crucial to determining whether Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed. Yet the evidence is not only as Dr. Blix has disclosed, that Iraq has impeded access, but that it has intimidated--

[Black History Month, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Black History Month is a celebration designed to recall, recognize and teach the importance of the history of Blacks in North America.

In Canada, this month was firstcelebrated in the 1970s and has now become an annual event celebrated across the country, particularly in large urban centres.

In order to honour and recognize Black History Month, the Government of Canada established the Mathieu Da Costa Challenge Awards in February 1996.

Mathieu Da Costa was the first of many persons of black ancestry to contribute to the building of Canada, the first recorded black person in Canada, arriving at the start of the 1600s, an interpreter who succeeded in bridging the linguistic gap between the Mi'kmaq people and the French explorers.

The Mathieu Da Costa challenge encourages students to research, discover and celebrate the contributions of Canadians of diverse ethnic and racial origins to the building of Canadian society. It helps them to develop a more inclusive notion of Canadian citizenship and identity and it underscores the values of equality, respect and tolerance which should inspire us all.

[Human Rights, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of one of the great defenders of democracy, Egyptian Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim, and in association with the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, based in my constituency, and at whose request I have been serving as counsel to Professor Ibrahim.

Simply put, Dr. Ibrahim was charged, convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison for doing nothing other than being a democracy advocate. Indeed, the prosecution and conviction itself violated Dr. Ibrahim's fundamental rights to a fair trial, including: the presumption of innocence; protection against arbitrary arrest and detention; access to legal counsel; the right to a full answer and reply; the right to a fair hearing before an independent judiciary; and the right to equal protection of the laws, and the like.

To its credit, the Egyptian Cour de Cassation has ordered a new trial on January 7 in what is one of the world's most important human rights cases today.

This case is a dramatic case study of the proverbial canary in the mine shaft of the Mideast's budding democracy movements. It deserves the support of Canada and all those who work for the rule of law, the protection of human rights and the pursuit of democracy.

[Human Rights, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we commemorate, and indeed celebrate, the 54th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the cornerstone of the International Bill of Human Rights, the international Magna Carta of human rights. It emerged as source and inspiration for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the first generation of rights, the fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion, of freedom of expression and association, that are the lifeblood of a democracy, and the right to life, liberty and security of the person, which are the cornerstones of human dignity.

It is the source and inspiration for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which has come to be known as the second generation of human rights, and which are increasingly not just aspirational but justiciable, not just hortatory but obligatory.

It is the source and inspiration for solidarity rights, the right to peace, the right to environment and the right to development, and perhaps most important, to the indivisibility of human rights, to the interdependence between rights, and to the celebration of human rights as a statement not only of who we are but what we aspire to be.

[Human Rights, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we commemorate and celebrate the 54th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the cornerstone of the International Bill of Human Rights--

[Human Rights, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, 54 years ago today, the United Nations adopted the genocide treaty, sometimes referred to as the never again treaty, to prevent and protect against this most unthinkable and unspeakable of crimes.

Regrettably, and incredibly, genocide became the paradigmatic form of armed conflict in the 1990s, including the advocacy and perpetration of genocide in the Balkans and Rwanda.

The enduring lesson of the Holocaust is that Nazism succeeded not only because of the industry of death but because of the ideology of hate. It was this teaching of contempt, this demonizing of the other, this is where it all began.

Fifty years later we have witnessed an appalling trafficking in state sanctioned hate, which led us down the road to the unthinkable, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, the unspeakable, the preventable genocide in Rwanda, and the demonizing, once again, of the Jews.

What is needed at this point is a strategy of prevention, a culture of human rights in place of a culture of hate; a culture of respect in place of a culture of contempt, of respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and the equal dignity of all persons everywhere.

[International Criminal Court, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the International Criminal Court is not only an historic development in the struggle against impunity, but it is also an historic milestone in the struggle to end impunity for crimes of sexual and gender violence.

First, the ICC treaty criminalizes sexual and gender violence as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Second, it provides important procedural protections for women victims and witnesses, with the court required to protect the safety, well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses.

Third, the rules of evidence are designed to shield victims of sexual violence from damaging or intrusive attacks on their sexuality or credibility.

Fourth, it requires that the election of judges take into account the need for gender equity.

It requires that the ICC prosecutor appoint advisors with legal expertise on sexual and gender violence, and it facilitates victims' direct participation in court proceedings so that the woman's voice can be heard.

In a word, international humanitarian law will no longer be able to ignore the victimization of women who are raped, trafficked and persecuted by horrendous acts of violence.

[Zimbabwe, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the recent witness testimony and documentary evidence regarding Zimbabwe, including that revealed before our PGA conference, is simply and tragically put, that Zimbabwe is dying.

While this silent death, as David Coltart put it, is not on our radar screen, Zimbabwe is on the verge of an impending humanitarian catastrophe. The pandemic of AIDS is such that Zimbabwe has the highest incidence of AIDS in the world. Also six million Zimbabweans, of whom 2,000 are children, are on the verge of starvation. Some estimates predict that some 600,000 Zimbabweans many be dead in the next six months. Even if only 10% of that estimate is true, we have an impending humanitarian catastrophe of the highest order.

Food policy is being used as a weapon of starvation such that we are witnessing the starvation of dissent. There is an utter breakdown in the rule of law with government sanctioned repression, intimidation, beatings, torture and political murders. Opposition parliamentarians are at risk not only for their speech but for their safety.

The most important and urgent initiative we can take is to restore legitimacy through free and fair elections.

[Violence against Women, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations General Assembly has declared this day as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, dramatized most recently by the violence in Nigeria. This day also marks the beginning in Canada of a 16 day period of activism against gender violence.

In the words of the General Assembly resolution, “violence against women is an obstacle to the achievement of equality, development and peace”.

Women around the world continue to be victimized by gender violence, particularly sexual violence against women in armed conflict and violence against refugee and vulnerable women.

In Canada 50% of women by age 16 have been the victim of at least one incident of physical or sexual violence, yet gender violence remains among the most unseen and unpunished of all the violations of universal human rights.

We should strengthen our call to eradicate gender violence and protect its victims; reaffirm our commitment to the empowerment of women throughout the world; re-examine the power relations in our communities so that we may eliminate all forms of gender subordination and discrimination; and make it clear that women's rights are human rights, and human rights mean nothing if they do not also include the rights of women.

[Human Rights, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the recent Human Rights Watch report entitled “All Our Hopes are Crushed: Violence and Repression in Western Afghanistan”, and that of Afghan-Canadian women decrying the absence of security and justice, even in Kabul, particularly for Afghan women, are ominous signs of a “re-Talibanization”.

It includes: first, the division of Afghanistan into provincial fiefdoms presided by warlords complicit in war crimes; second, a pattern in western Afghanistan of widespread political intimidation, arrests, beatings, torture and extortion, and complete denial of any freedom of expression or association; third, a continuing violation of women's rights with the reinstallation of Taliban-like departments of vice and virtue; a fatwa against Dr. Sima Samar; the rocketing of four schools for girls; and women denied access to health, employment and other basic human rights; fourth, the targeting of the Pashtun minority for special abuse; and fifth, a climate of fear and insecurity.

The Canadian government should: reaffirm principles of justice and accountability as the basis for human security in Afghanistan; ensure no development aid be funnelled through warlords; ensure that the ISAF presence extends throughout the country; and protect women's rights as a test of the new Afghanistan.