Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw, and Tony Blair have all suggested that resolution 1441 gives them adequate authority to start a war without further authorization by the Security Council. The undertakings made to ease the passage of 1441 make it clear beyond all doubt that this is not the case and, under the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council has no authority to use war as a way to settle an international dispute.

The US and UK ambassadors to the UN gave undertakings to the Security Council on 8 November 2002 as to their interpretation of the wording of Resolution 1441 in order to gain the support of China, France, and Russia.

John Negroponte for the US said, "This resolution contains no ‘hidden triggers’ and ‘no automaticity’ with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."

For the UK Sir Jeremy Greenstock said, "If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion."

France, Russia and China (the co-sponsors of the resolution) said in a joint statement, "Resolution 1441 adopted today by the Security Council excludes any automaticity in the use of force. In this regard, we register with satisfaction the declarations of the United States and United Kingdom confirming this understanding. . . In case of failure by Iraq to comply with its obligations . . . such failure will be reported to the Security council by the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC or by the Director General of the IAEA [inspection teams]. It will be then for the Council to take a position on the basis of that report."

The UN cannot authorize a war of aggression or a war of conquest The Security Council of the United Nations is constrained in its actions. If it identifies "a threat to peace" and peaceful responses prove "inadequate" it may not then move to an attempt to annihilate or conquer the offending country. It may use only such limited force as "may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." Article 42 of the UN Charter. It should be noted, in any case, that difficulties with arms inspection can hardly be construed as a threat to peace.

No action can be taken by the UN Security Council which is contrary to the spirit and letter of the UN Charter. Article 24 of the Charter gave the Security Council the "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security" and states, "In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations." The overriding purpose of the United Nations is ridding the world of "the scourge of war."

The Security Council also has to take account of the major restatement of law contained in the Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly of 24 October 1970, "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."

Disarming Iraq No further disarmament of Iraq can take place until the alleged weapons have been found - unless the total destruction of the region is contemplated. So far, over 8 years of inspections, 95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed and 100% of the facilities formerly used for the production of these weapons, according to UN Senior Arms Inspector, Scott Ritter. He also says that the rebuilding of facilities could not have taken place without detection, and that the shelf-life of Iraq’s previously known stocks of chemical and biological weapons has long expired, rendering them harmless. Anthrax that the Iraqis possessed was in a bulk liquid form which had a very limited shelf life compared with dry anthrax. In his judgement the remaining weapons that were not destroyed by 1998 do not constitute a threat, and certainly do not represent a weapons programme. (War on Iraq, published. 2002.)

Jack Straw to Foreign Affairs Select Committee "We are satisfied that we have sufficient legal authority in 1441 back to the originating resolution 660 and so on to justify military action against Iraq if they are in further material breach . . . We think we have sufficient legal authority there and that is clearly laid down and it was anticipated when we put 1441 together." - Jack Straw, 4 3 03. Tony Blair gave a similar message on Radio 4, PM, 6 3 03. Geoff Hoon, Radio 4, Today Programme, 12 3 03.

Senior US UN Arms inspector’s assessment

1. 1991 Iraq’s vast chemical weapons factory at Muthanna was substantially destroyed by American bombing. In subsequent years the task of destruction was completed by UN weapons inspectors.

2. 1991-1998 The Iraqis admitted producing chemical weapons Sarin and Tabun and eventually admitted to producing VX nerve agent. Evidence of the dumping of VX was found by the inspectors but there is no means of verifying the quantities. For most of the period 1991-1998 incineration plants were operated by the inspection team full time destroying chemical agent. Bombs, missiles and warheads were emptied or blown up.

5. In 1998 there was a media frenzy alleging biological weapons in Saddam’s palaces. These palaces were searched for nuclear and chemical weapons and none was found. The head of the biological weapons team, Dick Spertzel, refused to look in the palaces for biological weapons saying that he did not wish to give the Iraqis the benefit of a negative reading. The Iraqis repeatedly asked for the inspections to take place. Spertzel subsequently referred to the question of biological weapons in Iraq as a "black hole."

6. In1996 Iraq’s capacity to produce VX nerve agent was destroyed by UN weapons inspectors.

Information and assessments taken from War on Iraq by Scott Ritter, former Senior UN Weapons inspector in Iraq. Published by Profile Books 2002.

From the report of Mohammed Aldouri of Iraq to the UN Security Council, 16 October 2002 "The scale of the inspection process to which Iraq has submitted indicates co-operation on a large scale: Iraq's implementation of resolution 687 (1991) over the seven years and seven months to 15 December 1998 involved the following:

276 inspection teams, made up of a total of 3,845 inspectors, and 80 delegations in the form of special missions undertook 3,392 visits to Iraqi sites. Among these teams were 94 teams specializing in meetings and interviews, which met for a total of 2,359 hours with 1,378 people connected directly or indirectly with Iraq's previous programmes.

There were 192 monitoring teams involving 1,332 inspectors who undertook 10,256 inspection visits to sites subject to the monitoring system, as well as other sites.

"UNSCOM and IAEA used 140 surveillance cameras at 29 sites and 30 sensors at 23 sites, as well as 1,929 labels on 1,832 facilities and pieces of equipment in monitoring 161 sites. UNSCOM placed 9,026 labels on 99 types of missile with a range of less than seven kilometres.

UNSCOM and IAEA also undertook 2,967 helicopter sorties in their work, for a total of 4,480 flight hours. The United States undertook 434 U-2 surveillance sorties for a total of 1,800 flight hours. Iraq submitted 1,744,000 pages of documents to UNSCOM and IAEA, along with a number of videotapes and nine kilometres of microfilm, containing 600,000 pictures and 50,000 microfilm slides."

Withdrawal of weapons inspectors, December 1998 On 15 December 1998 Peter Burleigh, US Ambassador to the UN, instructed Richard Butler (Chief UN Weapons Inspector 1998) to withdraw the team of inspectors. - Source Saddam Defiant by Richard Butler, 2000.The purpose was to put the inspection team out of danger to allow the US Desert Fox bombing campaign which struck at many targets identified by the UNSCOM inspectors. This bombing, with over twenty thousand sorties, was not authorized by the UN. It was an unprovoked attack, illegal under international law and inevitably discouraging Iraqi co-operation with arms inspectors.

Is the proposed war against Iraq really about arms inspections or disarmament difficulties?

US aims were made clear on 31 October 1998 when Congress passed the Liberation of Iraq Act 1998. This called for the removal of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq and set aside funds for the support of opposition parties including military assistance up to the value of $97million. Regime change is the real aim of the planned war against Iraq and the act authorizing it, like the aim itself, is contrary to international law.

Further evidence that the war is not about a stalled disarmament process is that on 12 September 2001, the day after the twin towers came down, Donald Rumsfeld, according to an article by Dan Balz in the Washington Post, demanded a war against Iraq.

What more can Iraq do?

The Iraqis deny possessing weapons of mass destruction. They cannot prove a negative. They have asked inspectors to look anywhere they wish. Intelligence documents pinpointing hidden arms and facilities have proved to be 100% erroneous. Only if or when inspectors find prohibited weapons can further disarmament take place. Further inspections are not an optional route to disarmament. They are the only way. But a more important question is, "Are the weapons that may or may not exist a threat to peace?" Certainly the US and UK policy towards Iraq is such a threat, and the Security Council should be meeting to consider how it will deal with the matter.

The country was substantially disarmed by the UN weapons inspection teams which operated in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. It’s nuclear programme was wiped out. America and Britain allege that many weapons of mass destruction remain but no proof has been discovered, though satellite pictures reveal the suspicious movements of lorries and bulldozers.

America and Britain continue to assert that such weapons exist and that unless the Iraqi regime proves conclusively the non-existence of the alleged weapons then Britain and America will "disarm Iraq by force." How the weapons that cannot be proved to exist and cannot be located will be destroyed has yet to be explained. But the determination of these countries to remove the unproved threat cannot be doubted. They have assembled one of the largest armies and the most enormous array of weaponry ever seen on this earth. The initial 48 hour barrage will consist of the delivery of 3000 bombs and missiles.

Sometimes their declared objective is "the removal of Saddam Hussein," or, as it is sometimes expressed, "regime change." Since we know that they have advanced plans to occupy Iraq under the military governorship of General Tommy Franks and that British troops have been told that they may be in for a three year occupation of the country this may be the main aim.

The Security Council of the United Nations is the servant of the peoples of the world as represented by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Its duties and limitations are expressed in the Charter of the United Nations which also expresses the highest level of law in international relations. The Charter is

revised and elucidated by decisions of the General Assembly. For half a century almost all nations have become members of the United Nations and agreed to act in accordance with its charter.

International law is binding upon all states but is enforceable only by the effective expression of the will of the peoples of the world and through the good faith of nation states. International law exists for the protection and security of all nations and is accepted as a wise alternative to international anarchy. No nation or group of nations has the right to abandon the rule of law and enforce its will on other nations in contravention of international law.

The Security Council of the United Nations is not an agent free to act as it pleases. It is required to exercise its duties and work in accordance with the spirit and rules of the Charter of the United Nations.

It should take note of the Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly of 24 October 1970 which states, "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." That declaration further states, "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. . . 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."

Article 24 gave the Security Council the "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." It states, "In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations."

The present international crisis caused by a threatened war against Iraq requires action from the Security Council.

The Security Council’s present duties with regard to a threatened war against Iraq Under Article 39 of the Charter, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and shall make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken . . . to maintain or restore international peace and security." It should note that under article 2, even the threat of force is prohibited. "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."

Furthermore, the Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly of 24 October 1970 states, "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." That declaration further states, "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. . . 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."

At the present time the Security Council should be discussing the crisis created by the behaviour of two of its members.

There is additional support of this instruction in the footnotes.

America at the start of 2003 and for the past year has been making almost daily threats to attack Iraq. Its aggressive stance is supported most strongly by the British government. It is the clear duty of the Security Council to discuss what shall be done about the threats of war made by two of its own members.

Footnotes

From

UN General Assembly "Declaration on principles of international law in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" 24 October 1970.

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.