Resolution 1441 specifically prevents an automatic move to war.

It was a condition which Britain and the United States entered into when they assented to the wording of resolution 1441 that non compliance by Saddam Hussein could not automatically lead to war.

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."

6 March 2003, David Roberts, Press Officer, Action for UN Renewal,

Michael Ratner, President, Center for Constitutional Rights, Jules Lobel Professor,
University of Pittsburgh Law School, Znet Daily Commentaries, February 8, 2003

Law is against war The Security Council cannot authorize war

Politicians promoting a war against Iraq’s claim there has been 12 years of non-co-operation by Iraq in the matter of disarmament. This allegation is of acute significance in the case put forward for war and is clearly not justified. From authoritative sources we offer evidence which we feel everyone should know about.

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 inpectors 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. How can you demand or achieve disarmament when you cannot prove the existence of arms? 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.

5 March 2003

David Roberts, Press Officer, Action for UN Renewal,  actionforUNrenewal@warpoetry.co.uk Action for UN Renewal campaigns for a more effective United Nations. Please join us. Please see our website for details.

Resolution 1441 does not authorise war

Jack Straw is now claiming (statement to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, 4 March 2003 in response to a question from Donald Anderson) that the government has sufficient legal authority in resolution 1441 to justify military action without obtaining a second resolution from the Security Council, and that this "was anticipated when we put 1441 together." He is wrong on both points.

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, pub. 2002.)

5 March 2003, David Roberts, Press Officer, Action for UN Renewal,

The credibility of the United States and Britain certainly is The real international community, the people of the world, potentially the greatest superpower the world has ever known will be marching on the streets of London and Glasgow and eighty other cities around the world on Saturday.

Although many marchers may be unaware of it, their sense of outrage at the proposed unprovoked military assault on the Iraqi people is in fact also in support of the United Nations, its Charter and the rule of international law.

The Americans, as masters of media manipulation, have hijacked the United Nations and abused its platform and often its good name to promote policies which are the extreme opposite of all that the United Nations stands for. Too often actions taken by the UN, or lack of action taken by the UN, have baffled and shocked decent and thinking people around the world. Sadly, for many people the UN has an image of a corrupt, useless or even dangerous organization and many call for its abolition. It is not the institution itself which is to blame for its most prominent failings but those who so often dominate it.

The overriding purpose of the United Nations has always been to rid the world of "the scourge of war." At the core of its philosophy is the assertion of "fundamental human rights . . . the dignity and worth of the human person . . . the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small." It aims "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained."

Till now the United States has wielded excessive influence through economic inducements and the threat or actual use of force. Since the Second World War fourteen percent of the member states of the United Nations have been bombed by the United States.

Nations that stand against the US have to calculate not only the moral and legal rightness of their action, but also have to take into account the likely reaction of the US. Which governments dare to say they will impose economic sanctions against the US until it mends its ways? But, while governments hesitate to act, people power is already turning against American business in a big way. There is already a very active people’s boycott of all things American throughout the Middle East.

For the UN to be reclaimed for the benefit of the people of the world it is necessary for everyone, especially journalists, politicians and educators to know the key elements of the UN Charter so that they can hold not only the US government, but our own and others to account.

The US war against Iraq, has been threatened since 12 September 2001. These threats of death and destruction, held over the heads of 23 million innocent people, are in themselves a blatant violation of the UN Charter. So are the threats to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein or to effect regime change. Has anyone heard a politician or journalist ever take up these points? Article 2/4 of the UN Charter states, "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."

Non compliance with UN resolutions is not an excuse for war Israel is in breach of over 70 UN resolutions. It is not the usual practice of the United Nations in their case or any other case of a breach of a UN resolution to threaten death and destruction on a massive scale for the crime of non-compliance. In any case, the UN Charter requires that 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." Article 2-3.

Nowhere in the UN Charter is there the slightest suggestion that the possession of weapons of any kind, or lack of cooperation with UN inspectors could ever form an adequate justification for war.

The situation for America and Britain under the UN Charter at the moment should be very serious. If the Security Council were doing its job the two countries would be the subject of urgent investigation. Article 39 of the Charter sets out a vital task of the Security Council. "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace . . . and decide what measures shall be taken." The key words here are "threat to the peace." The question is simple and the answer is obvious, "Who is threatening war?"

If Bush and Blair take the step of starting a war against Iraq then they will become instant candidates for the International Criminal Court. The charge would be the gravest charge in international law. Under the Principles of Statute and Judgement of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 1945/6 - unanimously confirmed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolution 95 – "To initiate a war of aggression, 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."

As a practical matter, if the war against Iraq is to rid it of weapons of mass destruction, and if Iraq says it has not got any, and if inspectors cannot find any, how will the US and Britain destroy the weapons it can’t prove exist and cannot locate?

The need is for inspectors to stay as long as it takes to find these alleged weapons. If they do find some then according to standard UN procedure a discussion must take place about what is to be done next. Under the UN Charter all peaceful means have to be explored and exhausted before any form of violent solution can be contemplated.

For 8 years arms inspectors worked in Iraq destroying large quantities of weapons and weapons making facilities. It was not the "twelve years of non compliance" which Jack Straw so dishonestly proclaims. The destruction included Iraq’s entire nuclear weapons programme. If further weapons are found then there are good grounds for believing that these, too, may be destroyed by arrangement with the Iraqi regime.

David Roberts, Press Officer,Action for UN Renewal

This important declaration of the UN General Assembly points up the illegality of the actions of the United States supported by Britain in its interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 14441. Threats of war, acts of aggression and military occupation - which are now happening or are publicly announced - are all unacceptable under international law and are in flagrant contradiction to the spirit and purpose of the United Nations.

DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Convinced that the strict observance by States of the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of any other State is an essential condition to ensure that nations live together in peace with one another, since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter, but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security,

Recalling the duty of States to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State,

Considering it essential that all States 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,

Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter,

Reaffirming, in accordance with the Charter, the basic importance of sovereign equality and stressing that the purposes of the United Nations can be implemented only if States enjoy sovereign equality and comply fully with the requirements of this principle in their international relations,

Convinced that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a major obstacle to the promotion of international peace and security, Convinced that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to contemporary international law, and that its effective application is of paramount importance for the promotion of friendly relations among States, based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality,

Convinced in consequence that any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a State or country or at its political independence is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Considering the provisions of the Charter as a whole and taking into account the role of relevant resolutions adopted by the competent organs of the United Nations relating to the content of the principles,

Considering that the progressive development and codification of the following principles:

(a) The principle that States 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,

(b) The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,

(c) The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter,

(d) The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter,

(e) The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

(f) The principle of sovereign equality of States,

(g) The principle that States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter,

so as to secure their more effective application within the international community, would promote the realization of the purposes of the United Nations,

Having considered the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and co-operation among States,

1. Solemnly proclaims the following principles:

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.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

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. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as affecting:

(a) Provisions of the Charter or any international agreement prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law; or

(b) The powers of the Security Council under the Charter.

All States shall pursue in good faith negotiations for the early conclusion of a universal treaty on general and complete disarmament under effective international control and strive to adopt appropriate measures to reduce international tensions and strengthen confidence among States.

All States shall comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavour to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as enlarging or diminishing in any way the scope of the provisions of the Charter concerning cases in which the use of force is lawful.

International disputes shall be settled on the basis of the Sovereign equality of States and in accordance with the Principle of free choice of means. Recourse to, or acceptance of, a settlement procedure freely agreed to by States with regard to existing or future disputes to which they are parties shall not be regarded as incompatible with sovereign equality.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs prejudices or derogates from the applicable provisions of the Charter, in particular those relating to the pacific settlement of international disputes.

The principle concerning the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter

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 may use or encourage the use of economic political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, 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 use of force to deprive peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.

You report that George Bush and Tony Blair "will tell Security Council members that the UN must assert itself." (front page article 24 February.) What they mean by this is that they want the UN Security Council to authorise a devastating and unprovoked war against the people of Iraq.

I suggest that their line of argument is flawed and very dangerous because it represents an attempt to reverse the entire purpose of the United Nations and thereby disregard international law.

The Security Council has responsibilities which must be discharged in compliance with the UN Charter. The Security Council has the "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." UN Charter Article 24/1. "In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations." Article 24/2.

The United Nations was set up with the paramount purpose of ridding the world "of the scourge of war." The Charter asserts that not only must all members, "settle their international disputes by peaceful means," but also that, "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." Articles 2/3 and 2/4.

The unacceptability of such action was made even clearer in the Declaration of the UN General Assembly of 24 October 1970 which stated that, "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."

The choice before us could hardly be more grave. We either support the United Nations and international law as established in the Charter of the United Nations, or we support war and international anarchy. The threat to the authority of the United Nations comes not from a patient Security Council waiting for the discovery of weapons which may be a danger to the world, but from those who work tirelessly to promote war whilst protesting that that they are working for peace and the preservation of the United Nations.

The US seems clear about where it stands. This weekend Richard Perle, a leading adviser to George Bush, said, "The permanent members of the Security Council are not expected to make moral or legal judgments, but to advance the respective interests of their countries." (Observer, page 4.)

From David Roberts, Press Officer,  Action for UN Renewal,  3 Whitehall Court, London SW1A 2EL,  Email: dave@warpoetry.co.uk