THE JAMAICAN position on the war in Iraq as stated at Wednesday's sitting of the United Nations Security Council in New York was clear and unequivocal: the Security Council must remain the "source of legitimacy for collective action and it should not be compromised or undermined by any new doctrines or policies inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations".This country's position as outlined by the representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Stafford Neil, is in effect a rebuke of Britain and the United States for unilaterally initiating the war in Iraq without the support and approval of the United Nations Security Council. In the reference to "new doctrines or policies inconsistent with the UN Charter", Jamaica has also distanced itself from the policy enunciated by the United States and which was used to justify the invasion of Iraq; that it had a right to invade states, which, in its opinion posed a threat.
As the statement pointed out all states, not only Iraq, should comply with the resolutions of the Security Council and there was a viable alternative to the war, which was the disarmament of Iraq through the inspections process.
The position adopted by the Government of Jamaica, including the call for the Security Council to seek to effect a cease-fire, is not likely to go down well in Washington or London. But our long established friendship with both countries, which was referred to in the statement, places us in an ideal position to point out to them the error of their ways.
In supporting the position taken by the Government we would stress that all states have a responsibility to speak out in defence of what is right. The killing of innocent children and the maiming and damage to the psyches of survivors with the horror of war was not the only available option in Iraq.
Having said that, we are not unaware of the realpolitik (politics based on the realities and material needs) of the situation; that the U.S. in particular will not take kindly to the Jamaican stance. Indeed in the outpouring of correspondence since the war began there have been several letters to the Editor with thinly veiled warnings about the probable consequences Jamaica might suffer for not supporting the U.S.
But even as we insist on defending the rights of sovereignty we also point to the Jamaican-Americans fighting with the American forces, obedient to their own commitment as every soldier should be.
Our stance relates to the superpower policies that are changing the geopolitics of the globe in what we see as dangerous and unpredictable ways. The multilateral platform, embodied in the United Nations, in which small nations like ours do have a voice, must be preserved.
