Prime Minister's Office
 Dear Prime Minister:
               Re: U.S. response to Iraq's resistance to inspection
   The "Time is running out" theme, which makes a crisis out of a chronic 
geopolitical problem, must be resisted.  "Our patience is wearing thin" is
a feeble excuse for making war, with its terrible human costs.
   More imaginative diplomatic activity is called for, but rescuing the 
Clinton-Albright initiative is not Canada's proper concern.
  What should concern Canada, and stir us to resist, is our powerful 
neighbor's short fuse.  We should take seriously that U.S.- Russia tensions
are growing daily greater, in the scrap over Iraq;  the Russian military
may also have a short fuse.
  Diplomacy is cheapened in the eyes of all the world by so quick a 
recourse to warfare as that promoted by the U.S. today.
  Prime Minister, let Canada argue the need for more time to permit Russia's
mediation to take effect.
  L. Terrell Gardner
  President, Science for Peace
 cc  Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs
     Art Eggleton, Minister of Defence
     Bill Graham, Chair, SCFAIT
     Ernie Regehr, Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

2] Second letter to P-M Chretien
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 15:12:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Science for Peace 
Subject: "Punishing" Iraq

Dear Prime Minister Chretien:

	I urge you to consider:

	l) The contents of the enclosed copy of my letter to President Clinton;
	2) The likelihood of nuclear devices being used by the U.S., if 
it attacks Iraq, and the complicity Canada will undertake in the 
violation of international law such use entails;

	3) The terrible wrong any such attack imposes on the civilian 
population of Iraq.

	The Canadian NGO SCIENCE FOR PEACE calls upon you to lead Canada 
toward sponsoring a diplomatic or mediated solution to this problem:  
recently merely difficult, now artificially inflamed.


					L. Terrell Gardner
					President, Science for Peace

3] Letter to President Clinton
Subject: Iraq: No nukes,and no talk of nukes; Win by diplomacy; Soothe Yeltsin. 

Bill Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
Washington D.C.
Dear Mr. President: 
  As a concerned citizen of both the United States and Canada, and in my 
capacity as President of Science for Peace, I write to ask you to show 
strength--greater strength, courage and wisdom than has heretofore been 
demanded by your high office.
  The course you must take to avoid worldwide condemnation is to demand 
that only peaceful processes be applied to resolve the tension with Iraq.
  Your administration, and particularly your Secretary of State Albright, 
has created a pseudo-crisis which threatens the world.
  An attack by the mightiest military force ever assembled on a military 
midget like Iraq is embarrassing. Of course, Iraq may feel driven to do 
what harm it can, in return.  If nuclear weapons did not exist, the 
impending conflict would still be on a disastrous scale.  But consider:
* ANY use of nuclear weapons, by ANYONE would have, as its FIRST VICTIM
the restraint exercised from August 10, 1945 to the present by all 
nuclear powers;  and as its SECOND VICTIM , the entire non-proliferation 
regime for which the U.S. argued so doggedly in 1995.
* Use of a single "blockbuster" nuclear device would induce fallout and 
its consequent protracted suffering and illness, not confined to the 
innocent civilians of Iraq, but across national boundaries, to friend and 
foe alike:  Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypy, Turkey,Iran, Armenia, the
United Arab Emirates, israel, Jordan--the extent cannot be anticipated.  
It cannot be controlled.  We cannot be sure that the effects would not be 
felt in California, Arkansas, or Massachusetts.
* The first-order consequences--pain, sickness, death of 
innocents--should be enough to inhibit the use of weapons of mass 
destruction. One desensitized to such concerns might reflect on second-order
phenomena, including interstate political problems, ridicule, contempt, 
even hatred of the U.S. and of its leaders.  Unenviable.  Surely to be 
* President Yeltsin is trying to tell you something:  A possible unscrambling
of the signals--references to world war, retractions, reassertions--is this:
"I myself would not order a reprisal attack on the U.S.A.;  but I am not 
in complete control here, so...`Don't provoke!'"                                                                     
  Mr. President, it is a provocation that any however minor spokesperson   
for your administration--or, for that matter, any member of congress or 
associated official--utter intimations that this or that (nuclear) weapon
might be employed either in Iraq or elsewhere.  Such utterances should be 
proscribed by your directive, example and influence.
  In closing, I restate, both as a deeply concerned U.S. citizen and as 
directed by the Canadian Organization Science for Peace what we have argued:
  1) That no further threats--however muted, however disguised as 
conjecture or ignorance--regarding possible use of nuclear weapons 
against Iraq be heard from official U.S. Government sources;  and, of 
course, that no nuclear weapons be used there;
  2) That, on the contrary,your great strength as leader of a great and 
powerful nation be exercised to the utmost in advancing diplomatic 
alternativesto violence in the Gulf;  and
  3) That suitable assurances be promptly communicated to the 
international community, with particular attention to the expressed 
concern of Russia's President Yeltsin.
   I know that you can do it if you will.
   L. Terrell Gardner
   President, Science for Peace