[mobglob-discuss] Challenge to UN General Assembly peace activists can use

[Tom_Childs at Douglas.BC.CA]

  ----- Forwarded message: -----From: Chris Keene <chris.keene at which.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 15:24:02 +0000
Subject: What Can the World Do if the US Attacks Iraq?

PLEASE FORWARD

"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"


This gives a description of a means by which the UN General Assembly can
demand and immediate ceasefire and withdrawal after Iraq is attacked and
suggests that peace activists make it a central demand.  It describes
how such a procedure halted the Suez war.

Chris
---
MARJORIE COHN, marjorie at tjsl.edu,
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew18.HTM
A professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, Cohn
is executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild. She said
today: "If the Security Council is deadlocked, the General Assembly,
under the UN's Uniting for Peace resolution, can take action, including
the use of troops, to maintain or restore international peace and
security."


What Can the World Do if the US Attacks Iraq?
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) 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).  Information on Uniting
for Peace based on  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 ]






-- 
Tom Childs - Audio/Visual Resources
Douglas College Library
New Westminster, B.C. Canada
T: 604 527-5713 - library
T: 604 524-9316 - home
E: childst at douglas.bc.ca
U: BCGEU Local 703
W: http://www.globaljustice.ca