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.
|
