[Peace-discuss] United For Peace Initiative to Resolve the Iraq Crisis

[Jim Buell]

As we saw most clearly last Friday, the UN is where the action is, on 
whether the world can unite to stop Bush et al's push for invasion of Iraq 
(and the rest of the planet). The reason is straightforward: the entire 
organization was set up following World War II, specifically to banish 
pre-emptive wars upon one nation by another. This is clear from all of 
Chapter 7 (Resolutions 39-51) of the UN Charter 
(http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm), which in effect says that 
the UN Security Council - not individual member states - has the sole 
legitimate authority to engage in pre-emptive war. Short of an immediate, 
compelling need for self-defense, the UN Charter brooks no excuse for one 
country's invading another. (Although we know how often that's been watered 
down or ignored in the past, the scope has been nowhere near as sweeping as 
it is in this instance. That of course is why France, China, Russia and 
non-permanent members are choking on the Iraq invasion and the "Bush 
Doctrine" behind it.) The illegality of pre-emptive wars under 
international law was also a major thrust of the Nuremberg tribunals 
following World War II (where it is defined as a "crime against peace," 
equal in severity to "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity").

Effectively, and all too likely intentionally, the current US 
administration's thrust toward invading Iraq is meant to steamroller the UN 
Security Council either into rubber-stamping something that is totally 
against its reason for being (as expressed in Chapter 7) or to make the 
Security Council irrelevant. No wonder most of the Council are rising up 
against it, despite all attempts by the US and Brits to coerce, threaten 
and bribe. The only open question seems to be whether the militarists in DC 
and London are so intent on invading Iraq that they're willing to risk 
destroying the United Nations to do it, or whether they're so intent on 
destroying the United Nations that they're willing to risk invading Iraq to 
do that. (Odd, ain't it, that none of this is stressed in mainstream US news.)

Well, it turns out that the Security Council, as important as it is, isn't 
the final arbiter on all this. According to a recent Zmag article 
(http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-02/08ratner.cfm) and to its 
own website, The Center for Constitutional Rights 
(http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/report.asp?ObjID=0hZHHegENn&Content=186) 
is mounting a campaign to urge nations to act under the provisions of a 
1950 General Assembly Resolution, 377, that gives the GA authority to act 
when the Security Council is deadlocked. The main value of this 
little-known resolution, aptly called "Uniting for Peace," has come when 
one or another Security Council member has undertaken an invasion without 
SC authority (as is all too likely to be the case real soon now), and then 
that member vetoes any SC resolutions demanding withdrawal - e.g. in the 
Suez Crisis and the Russian invasion of Hungary, both in the 1950s.

I think this is all very important to keep in mind, and to make part of our 
strategy for working to keep war from starting and to continue opposing it 
when (if!, I hear some folks crying) it starts. This is the crux of the 
matter and why everyone on the planet with an ounce of sense in their 
heads, not just progressives like most of us AWARE types, ought to be 
working against this war and the doctrine behind it. A propos is a sign 
from the recent DC demonstration that I saw a picture of on the web last 
night: "Conservatives Against A War in Iraq: Pre-emption = Imperialism."

This is all by way of introducing an email that got forwarded to a state 
Greens list this morning, with more information re UN Resolution 377, 
"Uniting for Peace."

peace,
Jim


>To: <IllinoisGreensTalk at yahoogroups.com>
>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 02:20:18 -0600
>Subject: [IllinoisGreensTalk] United For Peace Initiative to Resolve the 
>Iraq Crisis
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>United For Peace Initiative to Resolve the Iraq Crisis
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>
>
>If the UN Security Council can't win a vote for the French-German Plan,
>they can take it to the General Assembly and prevent the war!
>
>
>
>This week and the next are crucial weeks during which to prevent the war.
>The German-French proposal may well be able to accomplish this, and with the
>presence in Iraq of a large number of inspectors (3 times as many as now
>under their plan) and a contingent (hopefully a large one) of United Nations
>Peacekeepers, the horrifying war plan of the Bush Administration, which
>includes possible use of nuclear bombs in the initial onslaught, may be
>prevented altogether.
>
>Such a plan would of course be vetoed by the U.S. on the Security Council,
>which, as we know, only authorizes things with a unanimous vote. However,
>there is a loophole in the U.S. power to stop the French-German plan, which
>is substantiated in the article reprinted below. Under the "United For
>Peace" provision of the U.N. laws, Security Council members may take their
>proposal to the General Assembly for a vote. This is what I believe can and
>must happen this week. The French and the Germans have the right idea, as
>I'm sure we all agree. Basically they are attempting to do whatever they can
>to prevent the war. If the Bush Administration and whoever they have bought
>and coerced on the Security Council object, France, Germany, Russia and
>China and their other co-sponsors may go the General Assembly for a vote,
>and this will make it possible for U.N. Peacekeepers to depart for Iraq as
>soon as possible, hopefully within 24 to 48 hours. Once the peacekeepers are
>there, it will be almost impossible for the U.S. to bomb Iraq.
>
>Let's circulate this proposal and discuss it with others, as well as
>telephone the French, German, Russian and Chinese, embassies to express our
>support for a "United For Peace Initiative to Resolve the Iraq Crisis".
>Following are the contact information for these four countries from the U.N.
>Website.
>
>France
>Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations
>One Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza, 245 East 47th Street, 44th Floor
>New York, N.Y. 10017, Telephone: (212) 308-5700
>Telefax: (212) 421-6889
>Correspondence: French
>france-presse at un.int
>
>Germany
>Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations
>871 United Nations Plaza (First Ave., 48/49 St.), New York, N.Y. 10017-1814
>Telephone: (212) 940-0400, Telefax: (212) 940-0402
>contact at germany-un.org
>
>Russian Federation
>Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations
>136 East 67th Street, New York, N.Y. 10021
>Telephone: (212) 861-4900/4901/4902, Telefax: (212) 628-0252
>rusun at un.int
>
>China
>Permanent Representative of the People's Republic of China to the United
>Nations
>350 East 35th Street, New York, N.Y. 10016
>Telephone: (212) 655-6100, Telefax: (212) 634-7626
>E-mail: chinamission_un at fmprc.gov.cn
>
>Additional United Nations Security Council members' Email addresses:
>
>mexico at un.int, ang-un at angolamissionun.org, chile at un.int, Pakistan at un.int,
>spain at spainemb.org, usa at un.int, IPRD at mfa.government.bg, syria at un.int,
>Guinea at un.int, Cameroon at un.int, uk at un.int
>
>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
>
>A U.N. Alternative to War: "Uniting for Peace"
>
>In the last few months, the Bush Administration has been unyielding in its
>march towards war, over the objections of some allies and despite the
>efforts of the United Nations. In response to France's threat that it would
>veto efforts by the United States to obtain a U.N. resolution authorizing
>the use of force against Iraq, President Bush said the United States would
>lead a "coalition of the willing to disarm Saddam Hussein." Prime Minister
>Tony Blair stated that the United States and Britain reserved the right to
>use force against Iraq--- even if a Security Council member vetoed a
>resolution authorizing the use of force. It now seems obvious that the
>United States, with some other countries, may soon go to war despite a veto;
>or, alternatively, go to war without returning to the Security Council and
>risking a veto. But for people around the world terrified that a new war in
>Iraq is inevitable, there may yet be hope. And that hope lies in a
>little-discussed mechanism of the United Nations itself—which, although it
>seems marginalized by American power, has the potential to stop the war.
>
>The Charter gives the Security Council "the primary responsibility for the
>maintenance of international peace and security." But the Security Council
>is currently unable to carry out this responsibility in light of U.S. plans
>to attack Iraq. The Council is stymied: The United States may bypass the
>Council entirely. And, if the Council tries to obtain passage of a
>resolution prohibiting the United States from using unauthorized force
>against Iraq, the United States or Britain will surely veto it.
>
>Long ago, the members of the United Nations recognized that such impasses
>would occur in the Security Council. They set up a procedure for insuring
>that such stalemates would not prevent the United Nations from carrying out
>its mission to "maintain international peace and security." In 1950, the
>United Nations by an almost unanimous vote adopted Resolution 377, the
>wonderfully named "Uniting for Peace." The United States played an important
>role in that resolutions adoption, concerned about the possibilities of
>vetoes by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
>
>Uniting for Peace provides that if, because of the lack of unanimity of the
>permanent members of the Security Council (France, China, Russia, Britain,
>United States), the Council cannot maintain international peace where there
>is a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression," the
>General Assembly "shall consider the matter immediately
." The General
>Assembly can meet within 24 hours to consider such a matter, and can
>recommend collective measures to U.N. members including the use of armed
>forces to "maintain or restore international peace and security."
>
>The Uniting for Peace resolution procedure has been used ten times since
>1950. Its first use was by the United States. After Egypt nationalized the
>Suez Canal in 1956 Britain and France attacked and occupied parts of the
>canal. Cease-fire resolutions in the Security Council were quickly vetoed by
>Britain and France. The United States went to the General Assembly calling
>for a cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces. An emergency session was held
>under the "Uniting for Peace" resolution; the U.S. resolution and
>subsequently an even stronger resolution passed the General Assembly. In the
>face of these resolutions it took less then a week for Britain and France to
>withdraw.
>
>Uniting for Peace was next used by the United States to pressure the Soviet
>Union to cease its intervention in Hungary in 1956. The Soviet Union had
>used its veto to prevent the passage of an anti-intervention resolution in
>the Security Council. Again, an emergency session of the General Assembly
>was held and the Soviet Union was ordered to stop its intervention in
>Hungary.
>
>In the current impasse over Iraq in the Security Council, Uniting for Peace
>can and should be used. The General Assembly should consider taking action
>with regard to the threat to the peace posed by U.S. military action against
>Iraq taken without U.N. authority. It could require that no military action
>be taken against Iraq without the explicit authority of the Security
>Council. It could mandate that the inspection regime be permitted to
>complete its inspections. It seems unlikely that the United States and
>Britain would ignore such a measure. A vote by the majority of countries in
>the world, particularly if it were almost unanimous, would make the
>unilateral rush to war more difficult.
>
>Uniting for Peace can be invoked either by seven members of the Security
>Council or by a majority of the members of the General Assembly. This gives
>those who oppose unilateral war a real opportunity for activism. People
>everywhere in the world can lobby their governments to bring on such a
>resolution. This effort can become a worldwide effort to, as the UN Charter
>so eloquently states, "save succeeding generations form the scourge of war."
>
>Michael Ratner
>President, Center for Constitutional Rights
>212 243 3805
>
>Jules Lobel
>Professor, Univ. of Pittsburgh Law School
>1 412 648 1375
>
>http://www.danirak.dk/english/ratner_final_op_ed_uniting.htm
>
>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
>TAKE ACTION * UNITING FOR PEACE
>
>"UN member states need to hear from each of us."
>
>Following is an appeal from Bill Douglas, author and international human
>rights worker.
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>I just spoke with France's UN office. They are BEGGING us to flood their
>offices and the other UN offices with emails to STOP the WAR. France needs
>to know that Americans are with them on this.
>
>PLEASE forward this to everyone you can. The UN email addresses are below
>for the Security Council. This could really make a difference, we can help
>the world stand together for peace. This email is making the rounds all over
>the nation, send your emails and faxes today!
>
>Thank you.
>Bill Douglas,
>author and international human rights worker
>
>Contact info for members of Security Council (Ambassador's name, email and
>fax):
>
>S.E. Ambassador M. Jean-Marc de LA Sabliere
>france-presse at un.int
>(212) 207-9765
>
>H.E. Ambassador Mr. Sergey Lavrov
>rusun at un.int
>(212) 628-0252
>
>H.E. Ambassador Wang Yingfan
>chinamission_un at fmprc.gov.cn
>(212) 634-7626
>
>H.E. Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock
>uk at un.int
>(212) 745-9316
>
>H.E. Ambassador Mr. Stefan Tafrov
>bulgaria at un.int
>(212) 472-9865
>
>S.E. Ambassador Martin Belinga Eboutou
>info at cameroonmission.org
>(212) 249-0533
>
>H.E. Ambassador M. François Lonseny Fall
>guinea at un.int
>(212) 687-8248
>
>S. E. Embajador Adolfo Aguilar ZÃ-nser
>mexico at un.int
>(212) 688-8862
>
>H.E. Ambassador Dr. Mikha’il Wahbi
>syria at un.int
>(212) 983-4439
>
>S.E. Ambassador Dr. Ismael Gaspar Martins
>ang-un at angolamissionun.org
>(212) 861-9295
>
>S.E. Ambassador Juan Gabriel Valdés
>chile at un.int
>(212) 832-0236
>
>H.E. Ambassador Dr. Gunter Pleuger
>contact at germany-un.org
>(212) 940-0402
>
>H.E. Ambassador Inocencio F. Arias
>spain at spainun.org
>(212) 682-4460
>
>H.E. Ambassador Munir Akram
>pakistan at un.int
>(212) 744-7348
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>
>(Please send a copy of your letters to info at flybynews.com for possible
>posting. Please mention if it is okay you want your name and/or contact
>information posted.)
>
>Sample letter:
>
>
>Dear Honorable Ambassadors of the United Nations,
>
>I am in awe after hearing many of your voices on the radio today regarding
>the Iraq inspections report. Thank you all for your dedicated work.
>
>As an American citizen, I am asking that each of you do everything you
>possibly can to continue to preserve peace without supporting war against
>Iraq. Tomorrow, I will be in front of the UN building as one of hundreds of
>thousands of our human family who oppose this war also. Please hear our
>voices rise up for peaceful resolutions and do not allow the Bush
>Administration to start this war!
>
>The Bush Administration goals do not represent most Americans. Conversely,
>they only represent a small percentage of corporate Americans who hold the
>majority of wealth and power and are not attentive to the real needs and
>concerns of our citizenry. A true democracy is OF THE PEOPLE. Please hear
>how the people of America support you in your attempt to prevent war against
>Iraq!
>
>Sincerely,
>Mary