Subject: RE: Question of Law
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:03:55 -0500

Dear Mr. Bracewell:

Thank you for your e-mail, received on January 30, 2003, requesting a more
detailed explanation of the legal basis for Canada's military involvement in
Afghanistan. I apologize for the delay in replying.

As I explained in my January 27, 2003 e-mail to you, Canada's military
contribution to the campaign against terrorism was undertaken in response to
the September 11, 2001 attacks upon the United States.

Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter allows for the individual and
collective right of self-defence to be exercised by states if an armed
attack occurs. Article 51 states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent
right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs
against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken
measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures
taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be
immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect
the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present
Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to
maintain or restore international peace and security.

After the September 11 attacks, this right of self-defence was expressly
reaffirmed in UN Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373.

As you are aware, both Canada and the United States are members of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). On October 2, 2001, the North Atlantic
Council of NATO determined that the United States had been subjected to an
armed attack. This determination permitted NATO to invoke its right of
individual and collective self-defence agreed to under Article 5 of the NATO
Treaty and expressly provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states:

The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more
of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against
them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs,
each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective
self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations,
will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith,
individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems
necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the
security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result
thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures
shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures
necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

In accordance with Article 51, on October 24, 2001, Canada formally notified
the President of the UN Security Council of the measures Canada was taking
in collective and individual self-defence. In the letter, Mr. Michel Duval,
Canada's Ambassador to the United Nations stated:

As announced by Canada's Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, on 7 October 2001, Canada is deploying naval ships, surveillance and transport airplanes, military personnel and other assets. Our actions are directed against Usama bin Laden's Al-Qaida terrorist organization and the Taliban regime that is supporting it.
Canada's actions are not directed against the Afghan population or against
Islam. Canada is taking these measures in exercise of the inherent right of
individual and collective self-defence in accordance with Article 51 of the
Charter of the United Nations.

With the above notification to the President of the UN Security Council,
Canada subsequently became involved in an armed conflict against the
Al-Qaida and the Taliban. Practically speaking, this means that the laws of
armed conflict apply to the conduct of Canadian Forces operations in
Afghanistan and the Arabian Gulf area. The law of armed conflict consists of
conventional law, Geneva Conventions, and customary international law, all
of which continue to be followed by Canadian forces involved in this
operation. In summary, the use of military force by Canada, along with its
coalition allies, represents the legitimate exercise of the inherent right
of collective and individual self-defence.

Once again, thank you for your interest in Canada's welfare.

Yours sincerely,

The Honourable John McCallum, P.C., M.P.

To the attention of Foreign Ministers of Finland, Sweden, Norway and

Dear Sir`s.

During the first 8 weeks in Afghanistan war, October 2001 to December 2001,
US has killed over 3767 Civilians
in Afghanistan, by: Classical Mass Destruction Weapons, like:
- Cluster Bombs
- Thermobaric (15.000 pounds) bombs
- B-52 "Carpet" bombings
- Cruise Missiles, equipped with 1000 pounds (=458 kg) Shrapnell Warheads.
- Depleted Uranium (=DU) bombs.

And the civilian killings are still going on by US, up to date.

Observe: these are all Classical Mass Destruction Weapons, they are NOT
Precision Guided Weapons.

Observe also:During the Iraqi War 1990, the "International Coalition" bombed
Iraq with Depleted Uranium Bombs
(300 tons DU, in 1 million bombs and ammunition).
Due to this reason, several thousand of Iraqi children are now lying and
waiting for death, in Iraqi hospitals,
due to Cancer, Hodkins Leukemia,Mutations, Immunosupression etc...
Due to the UN Embargo, over 560.000 Iraqi children have died,from 1991 to

Therefore arises the following question: Why is US and UK allowed to kill
civilians, by: Classical Mass Destruction Weapons?
Where is now the famous "Human Rights", "Freedom" and "Democracy"?

Dear Ministers: We appeal to you, that you do everything, at your hands, to
prevent the attack against Iraq,
planned by US and UK.
There is allready a great hurry, because, to our knowledge, the attack is
planned to start January-February 2003,
IMMEADITELY after 27.1.2003.

As we all know, Mr. Bush has offered Russia 8 Billion US Dollars, NOT to
veto against the coming new
UN Iraq Resolution in UNSC, designed specifically by US and UK, to allow
them to attack against Iraq.

Dear Ministers: The Iraqi children lifes is NOT a matter of business by

It is wellknown, that the real reason for the US and UK attack against Iraq
is: Oil.
Iraq has the SECOND richest oil reserves in the world (Source: Oil & Gas
Equally wellknown fact is, that US has to import 70% of its oil from outside
countries, mostly from Arab countries,
due to shrinkage of domestic oil production in US(Source: Oil & Gas

Dear Sir`s: The Iraqi oil belongs to Iraqi children, their future depends on
The Iraqi oil DOES NOT belong to US and Western Financial circuits and US
oil companies.

With best regards,
Dr. Stig Froberg/Physicist, Finland