The Canadians are very much against any unilateral action taken by the US. In a statement the Canadian Foreign Minster was critical of US foreign policy towards Iraq and told Parliament on Tuesday that a unilateral attack on Iraq could destabilize the world.
Canada says U.S. has no right to invade Iraq
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1525914
OTTAWA, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Canada on Wednesday noticeably hardened its line against the idea of a unilateral U.S. strike on Iraq, saying Washington had no right to take action that could destabilize large parts of the world.
**Ottawa – whose foreign policy is based on the idea of multilateral diplomacy – has consistently stressed the Iraq crisis should be handled through the United Nations and is showing increasing signs of alarm about the damage the world body could suffer. **
Foreign Minister Bill Graham said that while the U.N. charter did, in special circumstances, allow one nation to launch a pre-emptive strike against another, such an attack could not be justified now. **“Article 51 of the U.N. charter allows a state to take action in self defense. It doesn’t allow you to invade somebody just because you want to invade them,” he told CBC radio in a long interview. **
**“Canada does not want to see war. We do not believe we have a right to invade. However much we may detest Saddam Hussein we have a strong belief in the integrity of the international community that we have created, and there are certain rules and we want to continue to obey those rules…we are there to enforce the rules, not to enforce something else.” **
U.S. President George W. Bush is pressing the U.N. Security Council to produce a tough new resolution on the return of arms inspectors to Iraq and has made it clear Washington would act alone if necessary to destroy the weapons of mass destruction it says Baghdad is stockpiling. Graham said a unilateral strike would not be justified because it was generally felt that Baghdad did not have the capacity or ability to produce such weapons.
“So then you move the argument one (step) further back: Well, what if he gets them? Then he might…,” he said. “The further you move the argument away from an actual direct threat to a suggestion that, well perhaps, one day maybe… then of course you are opening the door to a basic destruction of the world order as we presently know it.”
**Graham – who told Parliament on Tuesday that a unilateral attack on Iraq could destabilize large parts of the world – dismissed the idea that a strike against Saddam would have limited after-effects. “People who want to attack Iraq say ‘Well it’s just Iraq, it’s just all about Saddam Hussein’. It isn’t just about Iraq, it isn’t just about Saddam Hussein, it’s about the world order we’ve constructed over the last 50 years,” he said vehemently. **
“You can’t talk about Iraq in isolation. That’s the whole point. That’s why we are having these huge debates because Iraq is a litmus test of where the world is going to go for (its) future peace and security.” Graham insisted that Saddam had to allow the inspectors back in but added that Baghdad should only be deprived of its arms of mass destruction. “I don’t think we’d want to go to the point where Iraq would be weakened to the point where it would then start to disintegrate,” he said, adding that this could destabilize the entire Middle East. “We don’t necessarily like Saddam Hussein there (in charge) and his is not the only regime that can maintain Iraq as a country, but we have to recognize there are serious potential consequences of getting in there.”
**Another advantage of acting through the U.N. Security Council would be that the Iraqis would have nothing to fear if the inspectors gave the country a clean bill of health, Graham told CBC. “That also puts an end to discussions about something else called regime change… You can’t then say ‘Oh by the way we got all we wanted on that, now let’s move for a regime change’,” he said. **
"We don’t want the United Nations to be accused of being the tool of any one country, however powerful it may be, because that in turn also undermines the integrity of the system. "
