From: "James Daly" <james.irldaly-AT-ntlworld.com>
Subject: BHA: UN
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:29:13 -0000


The following is a politico-educational initiative that neither falls

into an aporia of tolerance of liberal imperialism vs. defense of

state sovereignty nor looks to veto-wielders on the UN Security

Council for help; it is an initiative that respects sovereign

equality of nations and can incorporate a demand for popular

sovereignty (the ruled will essentially say to their respective

rulers -- obey our demand and stop the USG/UKG, _or else_):



***** Published on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

What Can the World Do if the US Attacks Iraq?

by Jeremy Brecher



If the US attacks Iraq without support of the UN Security Council,

will the world be powerless to stop it? The answer is no. Under a

procedure called "Uniting for Peace," the UN General Assembly can

demand an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal. The global peace

movement should consider demanding such an action.



When Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956, Britain, France, and

Israel invaded Egypt and began advancing on the Suez Canal. U.S.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower demanded that the invasion stop.

Resolutions in the UN Security Council called for a cease-fire - but

Britain and France vetoed them. Then the United States appealed to

the General Assembly and proposed a resolution calling for a

cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces. The General Assembly held an

emergency session and passed the resolution. Britain and France

withdrew from Egypt within a week.



The appeal to the General Assembly was made under a procedure called

"Uniting for Peace." This procedure was adopted by the Security

Council so that the UN can act even if the Security Council is

stalemated by vetoes. Resolution 377 provides that, if there is a

"threat to peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and the

permanent members of the Security Council do not agree on action, the

General Assembly can meet immediately and recommend collective

measures to U.N. members to "maintain or restore international peace

and security." The "Uniting for Peace" mechanism has been used ten

times, most frequently on the initiative of the United States.



The Bush Administration is currently promoting a Security Council

resolution that it claims will authorize it to attack Iraq. However,

huge opposition from global public opinion and most of the world's

governments make such a resolution's passage unlikely.



What will happen if the US withdraws its resolution or the resolution

is defeated? The US is currently indicating that it will attack Iraq

even without Security Council approval. The US would undoubtedly use

its veto should the Security Council attempt to condemn and halt its

aggression. But the US has no veto in the General Assembly.



Lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights (www.ccr-ny.org
<http://www.ccr-ny.org>) have

drafted a proposed "Uniting for Peace" resolution that governments

can submit to the General Assembly. It declares that military action

without a Security Council resolution authorizing such action is

contrary to the UN Charter and international law.



The global peace movement can begin right now to discuss the value of

such a resolution. If we conclude it is worthwhile, we can make it a

central demand, for example in the next round of global anti-war

demonstrations. Then we can mobilize pressure on governments that

claim to oppose the war -- the great majority of UN members -- to

demand that they initiate and support such a resolution.



Countries opposed to such a war can be asked to state now that, if

there is a Security Council deadlock and a US attack on Iraq is

imminent or under way, they will convene the General Assembly on an

emergency basis to condemn the attack and order the US to cease fire

and withdraw.



The sooner global public discussion begins laying the groundwork for

such action the better. Wide public advocacy will help governments

overcome their probable reluctance to take such a step. Further, the

threat of such global condemnation may help deter the Bush

administration - and to a much greater extent deter its wobbling

allies - from launching such an attack in the first place.



Prepared by Jeremy Brecher (jbrecher-AT-igc.org
<mailto:jbrecher-AT-igc.org>). Information on Uniting

for Peace based on "A U.N. Alternative to War: 'Uniting for Peace'"

by Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights and Jules Lobel,

University of Pittsburgh Law School <www.ccr-ny.org
<http://www.ccr-ny.org>>.



<<http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0305-01.htm>>

<<http://www.counterpunch.org/brecher03052003.html>>

<<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=3183
>>

<<http://athena.tbwt.com/content/article.asp?articleid=2509>>

<<http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/030503_what_can_the_world_do
_if_the_us.htm>>

*****



The Center for Constitutional Rights -- "Uniting for Peace":

<<http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/action_v2.asp>> &

<<http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/report.asp?ObjID=0hZHHegENn&Conten
t=186>>



Michael Ratner, "A U.N. Alternative to War: 'Uniting for Peace,'"

February 08, 2003,

<<http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-02/08ratner.cfm>>.



It should have a broad appeal outside the USA.

- --

Yoshie






     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---