Greenpeace is opposed to war in Iraq, whether or not an attack is sanctioned by the United Nations, because it would have devastating human and environmental consequences. According to military and health experts a conventional war could kill over 200,000 people, mainly civilians, and a further quarter of a million could die from famine and disease (MEDACT). If war escalates to involve chemical or nuclear weapons the death toll could run even run into millions.

Bush and Blair have cited Saddam Hussein's desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction as justification for an invasion. However, pre-

emptive military strikes against states possessing or suspected of possessing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons do not provide a stable basis for controlling them. It would require repeated armed interventions against numerous countries. States known to have nuclear weapons include India, Pakistan and Israel. North Korea is openly seeking to acquire them. The Bush administration has stated that at least 13 countries are pursuing biological weapons research.

Greenpeace believes the solution to weapons of mass destruction is collective international arms control and

disarmament. The framework already exists, in the form of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. But rather than being strengthened, these global treaties are being undermined by the existing nuclear weapons states.

The war is clearly motivated by oil. The same forces that are backing the war are also opposing the U.S. signing the Kyoto Protocol, which would begin to combat climate change.