|
IN THE PRESS
click to read more, cliquez pour lire
d'autres articles
Original text in english of résolution 377
Qu'est-ce
que la résolution 377 (en français)
Le
texte historique de la réusolution 377 (en français
- format pdf)
La
France, l'Onu et le maintien de la paix
A U.N. Alternative to War: "Uniting
for Peace"
In the last few months, the Bush Administration has been
unyielding in its march towards war, over the objections
of some allies and despite the efforts of the United Nations.
In response to France's threat that it would veto efforts
by the United States to obtain a U.N. resolution authorizing
the use of force against Iraq, President Bush said the
United States would lead a "coalition of the willing
to disarm Saddam Hussein."
Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that the United States
and Britain reserved the right to use force against Iraq---
even if a Security Council member vetoed a resolution
authorizing the use of force. It now seems obvious that
the United States, with some other countries, may soon
go to war despite a veto; or, alternatively, go to war
without returning to the Security Council and risking
a veto. But for people around the world terrified that
a new war in Iraq is inevitable, there may yet be hope.
And that hope lies in a little-discussed mechanism of
the United Nations itself-which, although it seems marginalized
by American power, has the potential to stop the war.
The Charter gives the Security Council "the primary
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace
and security." But the Security Council is currently
unable to carry out this responsibility in light of U.S.
plans to attack Iraq. The Council is stymied: The United
States may bypass the Council entirely. And, if the Council
tries to obtain passage of a resolution prohibiting the
United States from using unauthorized force against Iraq,
the United States or Britain will surely veto it.
Long ago, the members of the United Nations recognized
that such impasses would occur in the Security Council.
They set up a procedure for insuring that such stalemates
would not prevent the United Nations from carrying out
its mission to "maintain international peace and
security." In 1950, the United Nations by an almost
unanimous vote adopted Resolution 377, the wonderfully
named "Uniting for Peace." The United States
played an important role in that resolutions adoption,
concerned about the possibilities of vetoes by the Soviet
Union during the Cold War.
Uniting for Peace provides that if, because of the lack
of unanimity of the permanent members of the Security
Council (France, China, Russia, Britain, United States),
the Council cannot maintain international peace where
there is a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace
or act of aggression," the General Assembly "shall
consider the matter immediately…." The General
Assembly can meet within 24 hours to consider such a matter,
and can recommend collective measures to U.N. members
including the use of armed forces to "maintain or
restore international peace and security."
The Uniting for Peace resolution procedure has been used
ten times since 1950. Its first use was by the United
States. 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 quickly 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; the
U.S. resolution and subsequently an even stronger resolution
passed the General Assembly. In the face of these resolutions
it took less then a week for Britain and France to withdraw.
Uniting for Peace was next used by the United States to
pressure the Soviet Union to cease its intervention in
Hungary in 1956. 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.
In the current impasse over Iraq in the Security Council,
Uniting for Peace can and should be used. The General
Assembly should consider taking action with regard to
the threat to the peace posed by U.S. military action
against Iraq taken without U.N. authority. It could require
that no military action be taken against Iraq without
the explicit authority of the Security Council. It could
mandate that the inspection regime be permitted to complete
its inspections. It seems unlikely that the United States
and Britain would ignore such a measure. A vote by the
majority of countries in the world, particularly if it
were almost unanimous, would make the unilateral rush
to war more difficult.
Uniting for Peace can be invoked either by seven members
of the Security Council or by a majority of the members
of the General Assembly. This gives those who oppose unilateral
war a real opportunity for activism. People everywhere
in the world can lobby their governments to bring on such
a resolution. This effort can become a worldwide effort
to, as the UN Charter so eloquently states, "save
succeeding generations form the scourge of war."
Michael Ratner
President, Center for Constitutional Rights
http://www.danirak.dk/english/ratner_final_op_ed_uniting.htm
|
