Pierre Berton, author; Anton Kuerti, pianist; Margaret Atwood, author; Bruce Cockburn, musician; Robert Bateman, illustrator; David Suzuki, author.

This week, some of Canada's foremost artists and intellectuals put their name to a letter opposing military action against Iraq. In "Time to Move Beyond War," which they are handing out to every MP, they argue that using military force to disarm Iraq would be "profoundly immoral."

If ever there were proof that brains and common sense don't always go together, this is it. The letter is a strange soup of woolly minded pacifism, wide-eyed naiveté and crafty distortion. It would not be out of place in an undergraduate class on U.S. imperialism and the thought of Noam Chomsky. That it emerges from some of Canada's best-known international figures is shocking.

The authors claim that any use of force against Iraq would be "unprovoked aggression." Unprovoked, Mr. Berton? Saddam Hussein has defied at least 16 United Nations commands to stop building weapons of mass murder. He has started two wars of aggression against his neighbours, used chemical weapons against his own people, fired ballistic missiles at Israeli civilians and tried to assassinate a former U.S. president. If that isn't provocative, what is?

The authors say there is "no convincing evidence" that Mr. Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. No evidence, Mr. Kuerti? Only this week, the British government released evidence that he already possesses ready-to-use chemical and biological weapons and could build a nuclear bomb in one or two years if he gets his hands on fissile material. An independent London think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, came to similar conclusions.

The authors say using force against the Iraqi regime "would almost certainly result in destabilizing repercussions that would endanger the whole world." Is that so, Ms. Atwood? And what about the "destabilizing repercussions" of a sadistic dictator armed with weapons capable of killing millions?

The authors say it's wrong for nations with vast arsenals of nuclear weapons to try to prevent other nations from trying to get the same weaponry. What are you saying, Mr. Cockburn? That nuclear weapons in the hands of Britain and France are as bad as nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein? That we can't do anything about his weapons until every other country gets rid of every atomic warhead?

The authors say bombing sites that could contain chemical, biological or nuclear weapons could cause "global human and environmental catastrophe." Interesting, Mr. Suzuki. So are you conceding that Iraq does, in fact, have those weapons? If so, what if he uses them? Wouldn't that be a worse environmental catastrophe?

The authors say 1.5 million Iraqis, half a million of them children, have died because of UN sanctions. Are you sure, Mr. Bateman? Those figures, cheerfully exploited by the Iraqi government, are mostly guesswork. And if they were close to being accurate, who is really to blame for the suffering of the Iraqi people? Sanctions could have ended at any time over the past dozen years if Mr. Hussein had simply stopped trying to obtain weapons of mass murder. Instead, he has starved his own country to satisfy his hunger for destructive power.

That fact, alone, should make any sensible person wonder about Mr. Hussein's intentions. Yet not once in their 11-paragraph jeremiad do the authors concede that Saddam Hussein is the slightest threat to world, much less propose what to do about him.

Instead, they suggest that "the most powerful nations in the world" are to blame for "eroding the standard of living, environment, and the security of people throughout the world."

"Peace can only be built upon a foundation of diplomacy and justice," they intone. "We must work to uphold international law and to safeguard human rights, the environment and global human security."

No one could possibly argue with that. But who is the real threat to all those fine things?

International law, Mr. Berton? Saddam Hussein has been defying it for more than a decade, by flouting the will of the UN. Human rights, Mr. Kuerti? There are few worse violaters that Mr. Hussein, a killer and torturer who has trampled on the rights of his own people ever since taking power.

The environment, Mr. Suzuki? Who set fire to Kuwait's oil fields in the Persian Gulf war, filling the atmosphere with acrid fumes and fouling the gulf waters?

Human security, Mr. Cockburn? What security do people in the Middle East enjoy as long as Mr. Hussein is arming himself with the world's worst weapons?

There are arguments to be made against war on Iraq and they deserve to be heard. Instead, Canada's finest give us this parade of platitudes. Seldom have so many said so little.
mgee@globeandmail.ca