A Happy and Peaceful New Year, 2004?
We have today (24 December) written to leading UK politicians and the London embassies of nuclear powers presenting an agenda for a peaceful 2004 and asking how far they can go to meet the obvious and practical needs of the people of this country and the world.
Recipients of the challenge: Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, Hilary Benn, Michael Howard, Michael Ancram, Nicholas Soames, John Bercow, Charles Kennedy, Menzies Campbell, Paul Keetch, Tom Brake, AND the London Ambassadors of America, China, Russia, France, India, Pakistan, and Israel, with a copy to UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.
How far can politicians deliver on this agenda for peace?
1. Last year
Last year politicians promoted, or at best failed to avert, wars which brought the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. Today we issue a challenge to politicians in this country and those of nuclear powers to do better in 2004.
2. Moves toward civilised and lawful behaviour and prioritising human well-being?
We offer a vision of the world in which militarism, arms manufacture, war and international violence are abandoned. We want to see a sustainable environment, health-care, education, clean water, international friendship and co-operation and a richer and fuller life for all people as the priorities of all governments. (See the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals.)
3. Eliminate weapons of mass destruction?
We call on Britain and all other nuclear powers to invite the United Nations to send inspectors in to assess the stocks of illegally held nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and to oversee their destruction. (This relates, in part, to the unequivocal undertaking, made in 2000 by America, China, Russia, France and Britain to eliminate nuclear weapons.)
4. Science for people rather than against people?
We call on Britain and all other countries with weapons scientists to halt research and development into improved ways of killing people and redirect their scientific programmes to the solution of human problems and the betterment of life on earth.
5. Respect international law?
We call on all leaders to respect international law as the only way to ensure human security and development for all.
Action for UN Renewal |
Legal Action Against War |
World Court Project (UK) |
| 3 Whitehall Court, London SW1A 2EL CONTACT David Roberts, Spokesman, 01444 232 356 |
139 Vauxhall Street London SE11 511 CONTACT Dr James Thring, Spokesman, 020 7582 3734 |
67 Summerheath Road, Hailsham BN27 3DR CONTACT George Farebrother, Spokesman, 01323 844269 |
Background information follows:
· The law of war
· Agreement of nuclear weapons states to destroy their nuclear weapons
The Law of War
Starting a war of aggression is the gravest crime that may be committed
"The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent States alone, but affect the whole world.
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
It was for such crimes that Nazi war criminals were hanged.
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal.
Confirmed unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolution 95, 11 December 1946.
Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950. These principles established that individuals are personally responsible for crimes they commit in the name of the state.
Principle I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave-labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
"No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.
No State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.
The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.
Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.
In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression."
1. The essence of the UN The prime purpose of the United Nations is to rid the world of "the scourge of war." UN Charter, Preamble.
2. War and even the threat of war are not allowed "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." UN Charter, Article, 2-4, and UN Declaration on Principles of International Law. The reference to "political independence" clearly includes the idea of outlawing regime change by forces external to a state.
3. Disputes must be settled peacefully "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered." UN Charter, Article 2-3.
THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
Five nuclear powers, the UK, the US, China, France and Russia are legally obliged to scrap their arsenals.
In 1968 they signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the most widely accepted arms control with the support of practically all the world’s states. The treaty obliges the nuclear powers never to transfer their nuclear technology to other countries, and forbids other countries from acquiring nuclear capability. In return the nuclear powers are bound to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament".
In 1996 the International Court of Justice, the judicial arm of the United Nations, confirmed that there was a legal obligation "to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control".
In the year 2000 NPT Review Conference the states with nuclear weapons gave "an unequivocal undertaking" to eliminate nuclear weapons.
v These solemn pledges are not being kept even though the Cold War has ended. Negotiations haven’t even started. Thousands of nuclear weapons are still ready to be used at a moment’s notice.
The numbers of nuclear weapons deployed are:
CHINA 400
FRANCE 350
INDIA* 30-35
ISRAEL* 200
PAKISTAN* 24-48
RUSSIA 8,600
UNITED KINGDOM 196
UNITED STATES 10,656
Source: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November/December 2002 Vol. 58, No.6, pp. 103–104. India, Pakistan and Israeli figures are estimates.
* States which are not signatories to the NPT