Greenpeace and the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York
called on all members of the United Nations today to uphold the UN
Charter by holding an Emergency Session of the General Assembly (1)
to avoid an illegal war on Iraq (2). Anti-war advocates said all
191 members of the UN General Assembly should use UN resolution
377, known as 'Uniting for Peace', to call an emergency session
because the Security Council is split on the issue of how to
maintain international peace and security.
According to Steve Sawyer, spokesman for Greenpeace at the
United Nations headquarters in New York, "It's clear that the
United States and United Kingdom will not succeed in ramming
through a resolution to go to war. Yet it's also clear that, even
without UN backing, those countries intend to wage a reckless war
which would make the world a much more dangerous place. It's now up
to all the world's countries, not just a few of the powerful, to
meet together to avert this march to war."
If the permanent members of the Security Council cannot agree on
measures for the maintenance of international peace and security,
the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution enables the General Assembly to
consider the matter immediately. The General Assembly can be
convened within 24 hours to consider and recommend, measures to UN
members. The resolution has been invoked ten times in the past 50
years. (3)
Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional
Rights, stated: "The 'Uniting for Peace' resolution may be the last
hope to avert war. If passed, it will put the US and the UK on
notice that a war without Security Council authorization is utterly
illegal and a crime against the peace."
"If it wanted the world to be ruled by the cowboy with the
biggest guns, the international community wouldn't have created the
UN in the first place," added Sawyer. "The UN, including the
General Assembly, was created to preserve the rule of law and
promote multilateralism. It's time the UN fully exercises its
mandate and unites as a whole to defend its founding principles and
stop the impending attack on Iraq, which would be the most horrific
example of unilateralism. It must take this last chance for peace,"
he added.
Notes: (1) Resolution 377 recognises that the Security Council has primary responsibility for keeping the peace, but notes that a failure of the Security Council to discharge its responsibilities “does not deprive the General Assembly of its rights or relieve it of its responsibilities under the Charter in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security". The operative part of Resolution 377 says: Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time, the General Assembly may meet in emergency special session within twenty-four hours of the request therefor. Such emergency special session shall be called if requested by the Security Council on the vote of any seven members, or by a majority of the Members of the United Nations;"The full text of Resolution 377 can be found at http://nowar.greenpeace.org/ufp/(2) A further reason for the UN to meet in emergency session is to consider the position of the USA and Britain, which are all prepared to abandon the fundamental principle of non-aggression under international law and the UN system. Colin Powell told world business leaders at Davos in January that the US continues "to reserve our sovereign right" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2696063.stm] to unilaterally attack Iraq if it decides that Iraq is not cooperating with the UN inspectors. Britain has said it is prepared to ignore "unreasonable vetoes" in the Security Council. This means the Security Council will not prevent war in Iraq. Experts on international law from around the world have stated that an invasion of Iraq without the express agreement of the Security Council would be illegal, and that there is no basis in international law for the Security Council to agree to the attack.The history of the veto: Seven of the last nine vetoes at the Security Council have been by the United States. The most recent was in December 2002.USSR/Russia: 120 vetoes. Only two vetoes since the collapse of the Soviet Union US: 76 vetoes. Blocked 35 resolutions.UK: 32 vetoes, 23 times with the US. All solo UK vetoes on Zimbabwe France: 18 vetoes, 13 with the US and UK China: 5 vetoes For further information see:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm(3) The Uniting for Peace resolution has been used ten times since 1950. 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 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, and in the face of strong resolutions from the General Assembly, it took less then a week for Britain and France to withdraw.Uniting for Peace was again used by the United States to pressure the Soviet Union to cease its intervention in Hungary in 1956, after 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.