In 1991, Saddam Hussein held the world hostage with the threat of nuclear and chemical warfare. When he capitulated, it was at great cost. Thousands of Iraqis were dead, the nation of Israel had endured unprovoked missile attacks, and a United Nations coalition had amassed an international troop deployment the size of which had not been seen since the Second World War.

The peace that has persisted since, despite evidence of Saddam Hussein’s non-compliance with the restrictions of the ceasefire negotiated by the United Nations, is an uneasy one. Continuing sanctions against Iraq contain the country in an economic straitjacket, making life difficult for ordinary Iraqis, but the conditions of the ceasefire are that the sanctions must remain in place until there is sufficient evidence that all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been eliminated.

The response to the 1998 Iraqi crisis has been spearheaded by the United States. When Iraq denied U.S. officials access as part of the UN inspection teams in place to monitor the Iraqi weapons sites, and then further denied the entire UN team access to the weapons sites, U.S. President Bill Clinton started gathering support for a military coalition against Saddam Hussein. At the same time, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan started diplomatic negotiations with Iraq to get it to comply with the conditions of the ceasefire treaty.

At the United States’ request, Canada affirmed its support for an international coalition, as did the United Kingdom and Australia. But not all major world powers were in favour of the UN coalition; the lack of support from France and Russia was significant, particularly since both countries have a veto on the UN Security Council. The 1998 military coalition that headed toward the Persian Gulf therefore lacked the official sanction of the UN Security Council. Furthermore, not one of the Arab states was in favour of military action against Iraq.

In the end, Saddam Hussein backed down after the UN Secretary-General spoke with him privately. The United States has claimed victory once again. But this time, the line drawn in the sand is not so clear. The world is divided on how to treat Iraq, and this conflict, like all the Middle East tensions, is most certainly not going to go away.

The Canadian Forces have initiated Operation Determination, a mission involving about 350 personnel, HMS Toronto, and two Hercules aircraft. This operation, which patrols the Persian Gulf, monitoring and enforcing the economic blockade, remains active to this date. Compared with the U.S. military deployment to the Gulf, Canada’s contribution seems insignificant. But the political fallout is crucial. Canada has supported the United States in a militarily aggressive action that did not have the approval of the United Nations Security Council. The reasons for Canada’s support are complex, not the least of which is how Canada says “no” to the world’s largest military power with whom we share the world’s longest undefended border.

Alliances are an integral part of international relations, and although at the end of the 20th century we are seeing these alliances shift and sway just as they did at the end of the 19th century, the uncertainty during such shifting is always disturbing. The eventual outcome of this conflict involving Canadian military personnel remains obscure.