RESOLUTION
WHEREAS
the
UN General Assembly in Resolution A/RES/39/159
“Demands
that all States take no actions aimed at military intervention and occupation,
forcible change in or undermining of the socio-political system of States,
destabilization and overthrow of their Governments and, in particular,
initiate no military action to that end under any pretext whatsoever and cease
forthwith any such action already in progress”
WHEREAS
unilateral,
preemptive military action by the United States without a legally valid United
Nations Security Council resolution would violate Articles 2 and 51 of the United
Nations Charter and international customary law;
WHEREAS
such
action would thus constitute “the supreme international crime” according
to the principles laid down by the Nuremberg Tribunal;
WHEREAS
the
Security Council is bound to act in accordance with the Purposes and
Principles of the UN Charter to
maintain international peace and can authorize the use of limited force only
when:
o
there
exists a proven threat to international peace and security, and;
o
all
peaceful means have failed to contain the identified threat, and;
o
use
of force is necessary, proportionate to the threat and is in the common
interest.
WHEREAS
Canada’s
National Defence Act R.S. 1985,
C. N-5 stipulates that Canada may engage in military action only in the event
that Canada or a NATO ally is attacked or pursuant to an action taken under
the UN Charter;
WHEREAS
the
United States has been the primary force behind twelve years of non-military
sanctions against Iraq that have, according to UNICEF and other international
relief agencies, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children
due to inadequate food, water and medicine;
WHEREAS
past
military conflict in the region, including the use of depleted uranium, has
resulted in widespread environmental destruction, widespread damage to the
civilian infrastructure and widespread death and injury to Iraqi civilians and
indeterminate negative impacts such as the Gulf War Syndrome;
WHEREAS
a
further war in Iraq could result in extensive death, injury and suffering to
the Iraqi people, with estimates of up to 500,000 potential civilian
casualties and hundreds of thousands of refugees displaced by the scourge of
war;
WHEREAS
the
United Nations declared this decade, 2000-2010 as the “International Decade
for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World” (UN
Declaration 53/25, November 10, 1998), urging all people and all levels of
government to seek non-violent approaches to conflict resolution and wider
education about international law and alternatives to war;
WHEREAS
many
cities in North America have passed resolutions expressing opposition to use
of military force to compel a “regime change” in Iraq, including
Washington, D.C., Seattle, Washington, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Santa Cruz,
California, Ithaca, New York, Santa Fe, New Mexico, New Haven, Connecticut,
Oakland, California, Ann Arbor, Michigan and others;
WHEREAS the enormous expense of military operations against Iraq will inevitably result in reduced tax revenue being available for the lower levels of government including the City of Vancouver;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of Vancouver, B.C. Canada:
1.
1.
Hereby
express our opposition to a threatened United States’ pre-emptive military
action against Iraq that is not explicitly authorized by a legally valid
United Nations Security Council resolution;
2.
2.
Hereby
urge the Federal Government of Canada to take all diplomatic measures to urge
the United States adhere to the requirements of the UN
Charter and to work with and through the United Nations to obtain
peaceful compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolution
#1441 concerning the disarmament of Iraq of nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons;
3.
3.
Hereby call on all governments, especially the Government of
Canada, to:
·
comply with the United
Nations Charter, and;
·
reject a military approach to solving conflicts
between states, and;
·
seek to eliminate the root causes of conflict and
find solutions by peaceful means for the common good of all.
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be sent
to the Prime Minister of Canada, the President of the United States, the
Premier of British Columbia, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and upon
request, to any municipal or city government that seeks a copy.
STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC LAWYERS OPPOSING THE AUTHORISATION BY THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE USE OF ARMED FORCE IN IRAQ
The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), an organisation in consultative status with the UN ECOSOC, and represented at UNESCO and UNICEF and with affiliates in over 96 countries strongly condemns the United States' ultimatum issued to the United Nations that if the world body does not take action against Saddam Hussein, then the United States will "go it alone" with unilateral military action.
United States President George W. Bush has cited the possibility that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq's violations of Security Council resolutions, as the rationale for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
The United States has made it crystal clear for more than a decade that its objective is to topple Saddam Hussein. To this end, the United States has continuously bombed Iraq, including thirty-eight missions over the "No-flight zone" this year alone, and has spearheaded the devastating and harsh economic sanctions under which the Iraqi people have been suffering. No international law gives one country the license to exercise its might against the sovereignty of another country. Nor does the U.S. has the right to intervene in the affairs of the Iraqi people and to "choose" their leadership for them, as the U.S. has tried to do through the intense and unceasing pressure it has exerted in Palestine against Yassir Arafat. A U.S. led pre-emptive strike, which would result in a war in Iraq, can not be justified as a means to satisfy the U.S. objective to oust Saddam Hussein.
As a very large section of world leaders and experts have pointed out that there is no evidence that Iraq is a threat to world peace, or that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. To the contrary, in a recent interview on September 10, former South African President Nelson Mandela pointed out that "...Scott Ritter, a former United Nations arms inspector who is in Baghdad has said that there is no evidence whatsoever of [development of weapons of] mass destruction" and that neither Bush nor Blair has "provided evidence that such weapons exist." Mandela further asserted that no one talks about Israel's weapons of mass destruction, and suggested that there were two standards, based on whether a country is black or white.
IADL firmly believes that Bush's ultimatum to the U.N. does not legitimise a U.S. attack on Iraq. Bush characterised the conduct of the Iraqi regime as a "threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace." But the question arises: Is Bush's "newly found" respect for the United Nations sincere, or is it a tactics to appease world opinion, in the interests of furthering U.S. military and economic interests? Not so long ago, unilateral U.S. military threats against Iraq, for example, in 1996 and 1998, were correctly criticised as violations of the U.N. Charter, Article 2 (4) which prohibits Member States from "the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations."
The Security Council Resolution 687, required Iraq to extend full co-operation with U.N. weapons inspectors. But its non compliance by Iraq is an issue between the Iraqi government and the United Nations. The Security Council did not specify any enforcement mechanisms in that or subsequent resolutions. Only the Security Council is empowered to take "further steps as may be required for the implementation of the resolution." Although the Security Council warned Iraq, in Resolution 1154, of the "severest consequences" if it continued its refusal to comply, the Council declared that only it had the authority to "ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area."
Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter declare that no member state has the right to enforce any resolution with military action unless the Security Council decides that there has been a material breach of it resolution, and determines that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted. Then, the Council must specifically authorise the use of military force. The Security Council has after November 1990 not authorised any use of force for any alleged subsequent violations involving Iraq. The use of armed force merely for pre-emptive or retaliatory purposes is incompatible with the purposes of the United National Charter and is proscribed by article 2(4) of the Charter. Even with authorisation of the Security Council,the United States resort to war would be considered as unlawful as the Security Council can not delegate to US the power to undertake armed action.
On September 16, 2002, Dr. Naji Sabri, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Republic of Iraq, has informed United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, that the Government of the Republic of Iraq has decided to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without any conditions. The letter further expressed Iraq's desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction. The letter reiterated the essence of Secretary General's 12 September 2002 statement to the General Assembly, that the decision by Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction, and equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iraq and the timely implementation of the other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 687 (1991).
Iraq's unconditional invitation to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq, its expressed desire to assure the world that it no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction, and its commitment to implement the other provisions of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, including Resolution 687, is a positive step. The Member States of the Security Council should welcome Iraq's decision, and should give Iraq a chance to prove that it will abide by its promises in Dr. Sabri's letter. A premature authorisation of armed force by the Security Council, without providing Iraq with the opportunity to unconditionally admit the U.N. weapons inspectors and to abide by its other obligations, which are set forth in the relevant Security Council resolutions, would gravely endanger the peace and security of the Middle East region and of the entire world.
A pre-emptive invasion of Iraq would violate the United Nations Charter. The Charter requires member states to settle all disputes by peaceful means and not use military force in the absence of an armed attack. The U.N.Charter empowers only the Security Council to authorise the use of force, unless a member state is acting in individual or collective self-defence. Iraq has not attacked any country in the past 11 years. None of Iraq's neighbours have appealed to the Security Council to protect them from an imminent attack by Iraq, because they do not feel threatened. There is thus no legal justification for the Security Council to allow a pre-emptive attack or use of force against Iraq. The Security Council cannot sanction the use of force by a U.N. member state.
The United Nations Organisation was created to ensure that no one state could
impose its will on the other states. If the United Nations permits the
United States to unilaterally determine when to use armed force in Iraq, the
credibility of the United Nations would be seriously undermined. The
International Association of Democratic Lawyers calls on the member states of
the Security Council, and particularly the permanent members, to refrain from
authorising the use of force against Iraq and urges upon them to take a clear
and unambigous stand against any military action against Iraq.
JITENDRA SHARMA
PRESIDENT, IADL