Help Needed ! Become volunteer !
Devenez volontaire, nous avons besoin d'aide !

Choose your language

 
- Accueil - Qui nous sommes - Contact - MailingList - Webring - Sign the petition -

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

Une méthode pour stopper la guerre
Dans la presse

L'ONU et son fonctionnement

Qu'est-ce que la résolution 377 ?
La France, l'Onu et le maintien de la paix
Les infos de l'ONU sur l'Irak - Rapports et comptes-rendus


L'actualité

Notre revue de la presse internationale
Actualité du conflit
Archives revue de presse

 


Actions complémentaires

Center for Constitutional Rights in New York
Uniting for peace
(comité danois)


 


 

UNITING FOR PEACE - UNION POUR LE MAINTIEN DE LA PAIX

What Can the World Do, If Bush Attacks Iraq?
Uniting for Peace

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 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.

Jeremy Brecher is a historian and the author of twelve books including
STRIKE! and GLOBALIZATION FROM BELOW. He can be reached at:
jbrecher@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.




- Accueil - Qui nous sommes - Contact - MailingList - Webring - Sign the petition -