| |
10 February 2003
SECOND RESOLUTION
Defend the UN Charter: Oppose War on Iraq ARROW
WAR PLAN IRAQ Update Number 7b
EVEN WITH A NEW RESOLUTION, THIS
WAR IS WRONG
The Prime Minister is confident that he can win a second UN Resolution,
and that this will persuade a large chunk of anti-war opinion
to come over to his side. The opinion polls show that a majority
of people in Britain oppose war on Iraq without UN authorisation,
but a majority of people would support (or stop opposing) a war
covered by a new UN resolution. But a war on Iraq in the present
circumstances would be an attack not only on the civilian population
of Iraq, but on the core principles of the UN itself, an attack
on the United Nations Charter. The anti-war movement must defend
the UN Charter, against the UN Security Council if necessary.
'MATERIAL BREACH'/'SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES'
It is unlikely that a new UN Resolution will explicitly authorise
the use of force under US leadership, as UN Resolution 84 did
in July 1950, covering the Korean War. It is more likely that
the Resolution will declare Iraq in 'material breach' of its disarmament
duties, and threaten 'serious consequences'. These vague phrases
do not amount to an authorisation to use force. Iraq may be in
'material breach' of past UN Resolutions, but none of them authorised
the use of force in the event of Iraqi non- co-operation with
UN inspectors. (See ARROW Anti- War Briefing 25: Material
Breach for more on this.)
WHAT THE UN CHARTER SAYS
Even if the Resolution did explicitly 'authorise' the use of force,
war would not be legal. Article 39 of the UN Charter: 'The Security
Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace,
breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations,
or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles
41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.'
Art. 41 deals with nonviolent measures. Art. 42: 'Should the Security
Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would
be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such
action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain
or restore international peace and security.' So there are two
tests: there has to be a 'threat to peace' and nonviolent means
are 'inadequate'.
IRAQ IS NOT A 'THREAT TO PEACE'
British Vice-Admiral Sir James Jungius KBE observed in a letter
to The Times (1 Jan., p. 25): 'Even if the weapons do
exist, where is the evidence of intent to use them? War is too
important and unpleasant a business to be undertaken on the basis
of a hunch, however good that hunch may be.' Former Conservative
Cabinet Minister Douglas Hogg: 'The real question is not whether
he's got weapons of mass destruction, but rather whether-if he
has got those weapons-he is a grave and imminent threat to the
rest of us... even if he had these things, unless he's a grave
and imminent threat there isn't a moral basis for war, because
the doctrine of self- defence isn't properly invoked.' (BBC Radio
4, The World This Weekend, 12 Jan.) At the time of writing,
it has not been proved that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction
(WMD)-it has certainly not been shown that Iraq intends to use
its weapons in an aggressive manner.
'ADEQUATE' NONVIOLENT MEASURES: INSPECTION
To contain Iraq's suspected weapons programmes: 1) we can detect
and disarm any remaining weapons capability, and 2) we can 'freeze'
Iraq's capacity to make such weapons, to prevent their development
and use in the future.
The US has contrasted Iraqi behaviour unfavourably with that of
South Africa, which engaged in voluntary nuclear disarmament verified
by the International Atomic Energy Authority. The head of the
IAEA, 'Mr ElBaradei later noted that, even with co-operation,
this had taken two years.' (Financial Times, 28 Jan.,
p. 9) It was two years after IAEA inspections began that South
African President F.W. de Klerk announced in Mar. 1993 that Pretoria
had actually developed 'a limited nuclear deterrent'-the IAEA
then carried out inspections over the next five months, building
on several months of inspections in 1991. (IAEA Bulletin,
Vol. 37 No. 1, search <www.iaea.org/worldatom/Periodicals/>)
Weapons inspectors from the IAEA and the UN Monitoring and Ongoing
Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) have only been at work in Iraq
for two months-since 27 Nov. 2002, when they started their work
almost from scratch after a four-year gap. They need more time.
Months not weeks. 'To carry out a thorough inspection would likely
take several months.' Ewen Buchanan, spokesperson for UNMOVIC.
(FT, 9 Jan., p. 10) Mohammed El Baradei, head of IAEA
inspections in Iraq, told the Security Council on 27 Jan., 'Barring
exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained co-
operation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months
to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons
programme. These few months, in my view, would be a valuable investment
in peace because they could help us to avoid a war.' (Financial
Times, 28 Jan., p. 9) 'Seven out of ten Americans would give
UN weapons inspectors months more to seach for arms inside Iraq,
according to yesterday's Washington Post.' (Times, 23
Jan., p. 15) This figure fell after Colin Powell's misleading
Security Council presentation (see ARROW
Briefing 29: 'Game Over'). The international community
certainly wants more time: 'There is no reason to give a time-limit'
on inspections, said Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, France's UN envoy,
speaking for most of the world. (Times, 10 Jan., p. 1)
US INTENT ON FLOUTING RESOLUTION 1284
Para. 7 of UN Resolution 1284 (from Dec. 1999) says, 'not later
than 60 days' after the IAEA and UNMOVIC have started work in
Iraq, inspectors should draw up a 'work programme' including 'the
key remaining disarmament tasks to be completed by Iraq'. 60 days
ran out on 27 Jan., but there's no plan yet. Dr Hans Blix, head
of UNMOVIC, reminded reporters of Resolution 1284 on 9 Jan., saying
that it 'foresees that we will define in due course which are
the key remaining disarmament tasks and the Security Council will
approve them. And then it will be for Iraq to try to satisfy those
tasks. So February is not the end of time.' (<www.unmovic.org>
'Recent Items'.) We should now be beginning the process of verified
disarmament in Iraq, not contemplating the forced end of inspections
because of US bullying. The weapons inspectors themselves, almost
half the US public, the international community, and the main
UN Resolution governing the work of the weapons inspectors, all
want more time for inspectors to detect and disarm-months not
weeks.
'ADEQUATE' NONVIOLENT MEASURES: MONITORING
More importantly, UN weapons inspectors could now install throughout
Iraq a system of video cameras, radiation detectors, temperature
sensors and other devices to monitor 'dual-use' equipment that
might be used for developing weapons of mass destruction as well
as for normal civilian purposes. Video and air sampling information
could be fed back live to the inspectors' Baghdad HQ, and then
onto the UN in New York, as they did before Dec. 1998. Colin Powell
told the Security Council on 5 Feb. that Iraq had 'embedded key
portions of its illicit chemical weapons [CW] infrastructure within
its legitimate civilian industry': 'To all outward appearances,
even to experts, the infrastructure looks like an ordinary civilian
operation. Illicit and legitimate production can go on simultaneously
or on a dime.' In the real world, as former UN weapons inspector
Scott Ritter has pointed out, 'individual pieces of CW production
equipment are worthless unless they are assembled in a specific
configuration, a unique combination that would be readily discernible
to weapons inspectors.'
According to the UN inspection agency UNSCOM, 'Only the proper
combination of different pieces of equipment in a particular configuration
gives to... these pieces of equipment the status of a CW production
facility.' (quoted by Ritter, Arms Control Today, June
2000) As long as the video cameras are rolling, we would know
if Iraq's chemical industry was being used to produce weapons.
Temperature sensors can apparently play a similar role for biological
weapons, and radiation detectors for any nuclear weapons programme.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW
Careful readers will have noticed that it is up to the Security
Council to 'determine' whether there is a threat to peace, and
to 'consider' whether nonviolent means are inadequate. However,
this cannot be a licence for the Security Council to make war
at whim. There must be some objective basis in fact for the findings
that (a) there is a 'threat to peace' and (b) that nonviolent
means are 'inadequate'. In the present case, there are no threatening
military deployments, no signalled threats, and no doctrine of
aggressive attack-by Iraq. The evidence is that it is the US,
not Iraq, that currently poses a 'threat to peace' in the Gulf.
Similarly, there are nonviolent measures for detecting, disarming
and preventing the re-development of weapons of mass destruction
which have not yet been exhausted-which have barely begun to be
explored. If there is a UN Security Council Resolution which explicitly
'authorises' military action against Iraq, we must protest against
this breach of the UN Charter, the foundations of the world's
legal order. If there is a UN Security Council Resolution which
only refers to a 'material breach' and 'serious consequences',
this is not even an attempted 'authorisation' of war. We must
protect the UN Charter-from Washington, London, and, if necessary,
the UN Security Council. The UN Charter is there 'to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime
has brought untold sorrow to mankind.'
(Preamble)
BOOK
War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Why We Shouldnt Launch Another War
Against Iraq by Milan Rai
'An excellent weapon for all those opposed to Bush's war'. Tariq
Ali
'Excellent'. Alice Mahon MP
'Required reading for anyone concerned about the risk of war'.
Professor Paul Rogers, Bradford School of Peace Studies
'Timely and important'. Hilary Wainwright
£10 plus £1.80 p&p.
Please make cheques to ARROW Publications, and send with your
address to 29 Gensing Rd, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN38
0HE.
^ back
to the top
|
