The United Nations organisation was set up with the noblest aims and formulated its procedures on mankind’s highest principles. It was established to end war, promote respect for international law, and promote human rights and well-being. It set out to be an association of nations which accepted the values of civilised life and agreed to co-operate together for the good of all. It entrusted the core responsibility for "the maintenance of international peace and security" to the Security Council, requiring it to "act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

A key problem is that one member of the Security Council, America, has a foreign policy today which is in direct opposition to many UN principles. It is vociferous in the promotion of its wars and the manipulation of the United Nations. It is against international law where it doesn’t suit its purposes. It is ruthless in its use of violence. Its behaviour within the Security Council is a matter of grave concern and must not go unremedied.

For the sake of the whole world it is vital that the United Nations faces up to its failings and carries out radical reforms.

IRAQ AND THE UNITED NATIONS

The behaviour of the Security Council towards Iraq over the last thirteen years illustrates the enormity of Security Council maladministration. The Security Council is directly responsible for the gravest of crimes against humanity and the grossest violations of the Charter of the United Nations. The Security Council is guilty of failing to monitor action which it has initiated, failing to address the fact that crimes against humanity have been committed in its name, and failing to set up tribunals to try those suspected of responsibility for these crimes.

When the war against Iraq was looming in 2003 it neglected its first duty to deal with a "the threat to the peace" which was obvious to the whole world. After the war it condoned the aggression of the war and the illegal occupation, the theft of a nations’ funds and the offering for sale of its assets. Its duty was to protect the independence and sovereignty of Iraq.

The treatment of Iraq by the United Nations Security Council is a scandal and points to an urgent need for radical reform. The behaviour and attitude of the United States within the Security Council is a matter of grave concern.

Gulf War 1991 - Massacre and wanton destruction

The Gulf War of 1991 was authorised by Security Council with resolution 678 which allowed "member states co-operating with Kuwait" to use "all necessary means" to implement resolution 660 of 2 August 1990 which demanded that "Iraq withdraw its forces to the positions in which they were located at 1 August 1990" and thereby "restore peace and security in the region." America with the forces of several other nations achieved this, but in addition America took advantage of the situation to go on a rampage of killing and destruction - far exceeding what was militarily necessary to carry out the authorised task and being the plainest of war crimes.

First there was the massacre on the Basra road. When Iraqi troops were out of Kuwait and retreating, the head of the column was bombed, the end of the column was bombed, and for 48 hours the troops in-between were bombed. In all, thirty to forty thousand soldiers were massacred.

Second, massive attacks against the civilian infrastructure of Iraq were mounted. 227 thousand bombs were dropped on Iraq. (Article 52 of the First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions states, "Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack." Article 54 states, "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, or remove objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population." Nuremberg Principle VI lists "devastation not justified by military necessity" under the heading War Crimes.)

 Dr Eric Hoskins, a UNICEF advisor, reported that "eighteen of Iraq’s 20 power generating plants were rendered inoperable, reducing post-war electricity to just 4% of pre-war levels. Food storage facilities, industrial complexes, oil refineries, sewage pumping stations, telecommunications facilities, roads, railroads, and dozens of bridges were destroyed during the war."

The UN Secretary General sent Martti Ahtisaari, later President of Finland, to head a humanitarian assessment mission. He reported that the war had had "near apocalyptic results . . . on what had been until January 1991, a rather highly urbanised and mechanised society . . . Iraq has, for some time to come, been relegated to a pre-industrial age."

Sanctions became genocide

Normally, a country devastated by such a disaster would be a candidate for concerted action by nations of goodwill to bring the necessary humanitarian relief. Instead, the Security Council confirmed the continuation of the sanctions against Iraq. The new purpose was to bring about the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The Security Council set up a sanctions committee consisting of representatives of the fifteen Security Council members. The rules of the committee contained no safeguards that the sanctions would be administered in accordance with the principles of the United Nations. The rules allowed any member of the committee to reject any contract requested by the Iraqi government for the supply of any item needed, with no obligation to give a reason.

People with any concern for fellow human beings might well have worked successfully with this system, but the range and nature of the materials that were withheld from Iraq were astonishing. They included chlorine and aluminium sulphate which were needed to purify water; parts for pumps which were needed to provide irrigation, supply water and deal with sewage; paper, text books, medical journals, and computers; a whole array of machinery and machine parts including those needed to repair power stations; seeds, pesticides, fertilisers, and animal vaccines. By October 2001 humanitarian supplies worth $5 billion were "on hold" by the UN sanctions committee.

The effect of sanctions on an already devastated country was catastrophic. Sanctions led to malnutrition and disease on a vast scale and the death of over a million men, women and children. Four to five thousand Iraqi children under five were dying every month. Former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, infamously asserted that the avoidable deaths of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying. By the beginning of 2003 sixty per cent of Iraq’s population was totally dependant on food aid and fifty per cent of the population was under fifteen. For years there were outcries about the effects of the UN sanctions.

When British and American politicians were challenged on the effects of the sanctions they typically blamed the effects on the alleged misrule of Saddam Hussein. They repeatedly asserted that the distribution of aid was hampered by failures of the Iraqi administration. These claims have equally repeatedly been refuted by UN experts in the field who had a team of observers to monitor the process.

Under Saddam Hussein before 1991 Iraq had been a first world country with a first rate free educational system and offering a free, quality national health service. As if unaware of the positive achievements of Saddam Hussein and the negative effects of sanctions British politicians claimed that the dire state of Iraq was caused by Saddam’s appalling mismanagement of the economy.

Bearing in mind that the United Nations proclaims "faith in fundamental human rights" and "a determination to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom," it has to be asked how of the United Nations Security Council could torment and destroy so many people in Iraq in contravention of its core principles. Denis Halliday, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, was not alone in describing the actions of the Security Council with regard to sanctions against Iraq as genocide. (The definition of genocide includes "an attempt to destroy in whole or in part, a national group . . . by killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.")

Security Council galvanised into inaction

The prime task of the Security Council is "the maintenance of international peace and security". Under article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations it is the duty of the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace . . . and make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken." During 2002 and the early months of 2003 the whole world knew that America and Britain were threatening to attack Iraq. They were working desperately against UN principles to make a case for war against Iraq. Verbal threats were issued on an almost daily basis. Tens of thousands of troops were moved into Kuwait along the border with Iraq. There has never been a clearer threat to peace. Yet the Security Council never once discussed what should be done with those threatening aggression and no member of the United Nations brought the matter to the attention of either the Security Council or the General Assembly which it was entitled to do under Article 35.

The Security Council did not approve the war and finally said so on the eve of it. In their decision they were belatedly following world opinion. Had they acted in conformity with their clear duty to oppose a war of aggression then world opinion would have overwhelmed the war rhetoric. Instead the result of Security Council inaction was the war against Iraq which has led to the deaths of at least 20,000 people, the injuring and maiming of 40,000 people and the inevitable destruction which is caused when thirty thousand bombs and missiles, including depleted uranium and cluster munitions, rain down on towns and cities.

Tacit approval of aggression

The day that Iraq invaded Kuwait the Security Council passed resolution 660. This unequivocally condemned the invasion and demanded the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces. There should have been an equally unequivocal and swift condemnation by the Security Council of the illegal attack on Iraq by Britain and America and a demand for the attackers to cease hostilities immediately.

Authorising misrule

Security Council resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003 gave mixed signals. However, it did stress "the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine their own political future and control their own natural resources" and called upon all concerned to "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907." The remainder of the resolution did not support these ideas.

In effect it condoned the illegal invasion. Security Council Resolution 1483 accepted the setting up of a "Development Fund" to be financed with Iraq’s own money starting with one billion US dollars from the UN administered escrow account set up under resolution 986. This money came from the sale of Iraqi oil and was to be used specifically for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. The Security Council agreed that the fund would be controlled by the occupiers "in consultation with the Iraqi interim administration." (See Program Review Board below.) Further funds came from the seizure of Iraqi assets held in foreign banks, including the personal fortune of Saddam Hussein, and oil revenues received since the beginning of the American occupation of Iraq. In total this amounted to $5,000,000 by mid October 2003.

America was thus free to use $5,000,000,000 of Iraqi funds to pay themselves to rebuild Iraq and "for the costs of Iraqi civilian administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq." In other words Paul Bremer could use the funds more or less as he wished. It was not the right of the United Nations to give away this money which it held in trust until such time as it could be used for various specific benefits to the Iraqi people, and it was not the right of America to use this money. Of the five billion dollars so far transferred to the American administration only one billion dollars has been accounted for and a senior Un official in New York says he has no idea how funds are being used.

Within weeks of the invasion Iraq’s oil industry was in the control of the United States, being run by Haliburton, and there is no information as to how Haliburton’s services are costed and paid for. On September 19 Paul Bremer, the US Governor of Iraq, announced with order number 39 that 200 of Iraq’s State Industries and services were to be privatised and available for purchase by any foreign investor. Iraq was to be made attractive for foreign investment by the reduction of corporation tax from 40% to 15%. Such interference in the running of an occupied country is not allowed under the Charter of the United Nations or international law (Hague Regulations 1907). This is a clear breach of "the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine their own political future and control their own natural resources."

Opportunities to give power to Iraqis avoided

From the earliest days the American Administration could have given substantial control to the Iraqi Governing Council which it set up, and the Governing Council could have been more representative of the Iraqi people by avoiding loading it with the Iraqi exiles and including within it representatives of the main power groupings in Iraq. It seems that the so-called governing council acts only as a consultative and administrative body.

Even before the war had begun America was awarding contracts to some of its biggest companies to rebuild that which was about to be destroyed. Is it likely that the Iraqi people would wish to enrich those who had destroyed their country? A commitment to democracy might have been demonstrated in its handling of these reconstruction contracts.

How is Paul Bremer working "in consultation with the Iraqi interim administration," as he is required to do under Security Council Resolution 1483? He has set up a Program Review Board, a committee to make recommendations on public spending. This committee has eleven voting members. Of these seven are Americans. There is one Briton, one Australian, and two Iraqis - one being the Minister of Finance who was appointed by the Governing Council of Iraq which was itself appointed by Paul Bremer. (He joined the consultation process in September after a great many decisions had been taken.) This committee’s recommendations are brought to Paul Bremer who then takes a final decision. This clearly demonstrates the American determination to control Iraq’s assets, and its opposition to handing democracy to the Iraqi people at the earliest possible time.

Huge contracts have been awarded to American companies, some of which have close connections with the American administration. These companies have started work with their own personal and are thus depriving the Iraqi people of employment and dignity. Through the Iraqi Development Fund the Iraqis will pay American big business to repair the damage caused by American bombing and pay for the illegal occupation of their country.

The Security Council is responsible for international peace and security. That is the beginning and end of its remit. It has exceeded its powers by meddling in the economic arrangements of a sovereign country. The arrangements it has authorised are illegal and may be rescinded by a new or Iraqi government. It is not entitled to give away, or sell at bargain basement prices, the assets of an occupied country nor to give its funds to an illegal occupying power to use at it wishes.

 UNITED NATIONS - THE NEEDED REFORMS

Lessons from the Gulf War

The events and actions described above show the following defects in the behaviour of the United Nations Security Council. The first is to do with how the United States committed gross violations of international law and acted outside the United Nations Charter in the way it conducted the Gulf War. The two problems here were the massacre of the retreating Iraqi forces, and the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. We can see that the Security Council’s instructions to the forces it employed to get Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait and the subsequent direction and monitoring of these forces were inadequate. Also, following the committing of momentous crimes there was no investigation, no war crimes tribunal, no holding to account. These crimes remain and should be dealt with. Those suspected of guilt should be tried.

The Security Council authorised the United States to run the war. This is not permitted by the Charter. Article 47, paragraph 3, requires that the Military Staff Committee (which consists of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council, or their representatives) "shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Whether or not the use of a Military Staff Committee would result in the proper running of the United Nations enforcement action the issue of the proper control of forces must be addressed.

In authorising the attack on Iraqi forces the Security Council indicated that the forces should use "all necessary means". These words are traditionally used when force is authorised by the Security Council and would work well if those responsible for conducting a campaign respected the spirit and purposes of the United Nations. This was manifestly not the case and it would seem wise, in the future, for the Security Council to indicate more precisely what may and may not be done when applying force to deal with a breakdown of peace.

The Security Council has never been entitled to unleash unlimited destruction in pursuit of bringing peace. It may only authorise force proportionate to the needs of restoring peace. Article 42 specifies that " it may take such action . . . as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." To stress what needs to be stressed, it may not go beyond the true needs of the situation. In addition, the United Nations is dedicated to the upholding of international law and therefore must treat with the utmost gravity the violation of international laws by forces operating under its direction.

Recommendations

When the Security Council authorises the use of force it should specify clearly what may and may not be done. The direction of the use of force should be, in accordance with article 47/3, by the military Staff Committee.

The Security Council should monitor the actions taken by forces that it employs. It should investigate wrongdoing and in situations in which the new International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction it should set up an appropriate tribunal to deal with any international crimes.

Lessons from sanctions against Iraq

Sanctions, as envisaged in the charter, were surely intended to be a firm form of persuasion consisting of such things as trade restrictions which might lower standards of living without causing actual suffering; halting trade in luxury goods; and restriction of diplomatic rights, travel, sporting and cultural exchanges. The way sanctions were employed against the people of Iraq was as a genocidal weapon. It was wrong of the Security Council to allow any member of the Security Council to stop the supply of any item without giving a reason which was justified under criteria which the Council should have set out. The Security Council was grossly negligent in not monitoring the effects of sanctions and in not responding to the outcry against them over many years.

Recommendations

The Security Council should set up rules under which sanctions may be applied in order to ensure that the effects do not conflict with UN principles including that of respecting human rights.

The Security Council should monitor the effects of sanctions (and, for that matter) all other decisions that it takes, and take appropriate action when things go wrong.

In the case of the sanctions against Iraq the Security Council should establish a tribunal to try those believed to be responsible for the deaths of over a million people. It must ensure that in the future sanctions are never applied to a country in such a way that they put at risk education; the development of medical, scientific and other knowledge; the health, nutrition, and survival of a people.

Lessons from the build-up to the war in Iraq in 2003

The failure of the Security Council this time was that it completely ignored the threats of war coming from the United States and Britain. It should have demanded and worked for peaceful ways of dealing with the alleged, but fraudulent, concerns of Britain and America. The Security Council is guilty of dereliction of duty and allowing a major calamity as a result. A reform of attitudes, rather than rules, is required. Members of the Security Council must be alert to the hysteria and bluster of the United States, deal with any threats made by this country, and not allow itself to be side tracked by its diversionary tactics.

Resolution 1441, prior to the 2003 bombing of Iraq, contained factual errors and misleading statements including the statement that "Iraq ceased all co-operation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998." This implies the fault was on the Iraqi side, when in fact it was the United States who withdrew inspectors making it impossible for further co-operation by Iraq at that time. Also, the resolution refers to Iraq’s "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction" as if it were current problem which it was not. At worst it was believed that there may have been some residual materials that might at some time in the future be weaponised. The reference to Iraqi terrorism was without justification. The statement that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions" implies that it has done hardly anything to comply with the demands of weapons inspectors and the Security Council. The truth, so far as it was known at that time, was that Iraq had complied with about 95% of the demands.

The threat in the resolution of "serious consequences" was unreasonable because the Security Council had already killed over 1,000,000 Iraqis by means of the sanctions it imposed and operated against Iraq. There could be no justification under United Nations Charter of inflicting more suffering on the people of Iraq.

The misinformation contained in the resolution seems to have been intended to mislead world opinion. Resolution 1441 was used by politicians to sell the idea that it was necessary to bomb Iraq in order to get co-operation. They quoted it as if it were an authoritative source of information, which it should have been.

Recommendation

The General Assembly should set up a Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise the work of the Security Council and deal with misdeeds and omissions. It should examine proposed resolutions to ensure that they comply with UN principles, are consistent with international law, do not contain factual errors or misleading suggestions, do not make unreasonable demands, and do not exceed the mandate of the Security Council.

 

When the legality of a proposed action by the Security Council is in question then the senior legal officer of the United Nations should advise. In the event of his advice not being accepted by the Security Council then the Scrutiny Committee should take the matter to the International Court of Justice in the Hague. All legal advice should be published.

The Scrutiny Committee should publish all its recommendations to the Security Council and keep the public fully informed about its investigations and discussions.

When United Nations arms inspectors checked out the information given to the General Assembly by Colin Powell, United States Secretary of State, they found that it was virtually totally in error. The toleration of attempts to mislead the United Nations brings the organisation into general contempt.

Recommendation 

A Standards Committee should be set up to deal with any individual whose word or behaviour brings the General Assembly or the Security Council seriously into disrepute. Speakers at the United Nations who are found guilty of presenting grossly inaccurate information should be suspended from further access to the United Nations for at least a year. Such suspensions should be publicly announced.

Any member of the General Assembly was entitled to raise, at a meeting of the General Assembly, the matter of the threats posed by Britain and America but failed to do so. The Security Council was taking no action under article twelve to deal with the American and British threats to peace. Therefore the General Assembly was entitled to discuss the matter.

Members of the General Assembly are entitled to canvass support for the recall of the General Assembly under the " uniting for peace resolution". This is a procedure set up in 1950 (resolution 377). With sufficient support a special session of the General Assembly can be initiated to deal with a matter of peace and security which the Security Council seems unable to handle. The rules require a majority of members of the General Assembly (96) or just seven members of the Security Council to be in favour of an emergency session for one to be set up. Such a special session has been used on ten previous occasions. Nations were trying to initiate such an assembly but moved too slowly to gather the required number of votes. The United States wrote letters to many nations threatening sanctions against them if they supported a move to bring the issue of Iraq before the General Assembly.

Recommendations

The use of threats and bribes to influence the working of the United Nations by any nation should be specifically prohibited by Charter. The position of the offending country within the organisation should be at stake.

In an emergency situation it may be unrealistic to require the consent of so many members before an emergency meeting of the General Assembly can be arranged to deal with an important concern. Perhaps a petition from thirty member states should be sufficient.

The General Assembly should exercise its right to overrule the Security Council in exceptional circumstances and debate issues of major concern.

Lessons from the aftermath of the war in Iraq in 2003

The Security Council, since the invasion of Iraq, is guilty of exceeding its powers and supporting non-compliance with international law and important United Nations rules. It has left America in control of Iraq, in possession of wealth which rightfully belongs to the Iraqi people, and free to manipulate its economy and resources for the benefit of the United States. Resolution 1483 appears to condone the breaking of certain articles of the Geneva Conventions, and the Hague Regulations of 1907 even though it reminds the occupying powers of the need to comply with these international laws.

As already mentioned, the Security Council has a duty to uphold international law. The Security Council has no business to be enabling the setting up of any kind of government or economic system in Iraq which is not what the Iraqi people would choose of their own free will. It should not condone the manipulation by the United States of the provisional Governing Council of Iraq to produce a kind of government which suits the interests of American big business. The Security Council should be mindful of General Assembly resolution 2625 which states, "Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems."

Recommendation

This is another occasion when a Scrutiny Committee might have done good work exposing the fact that the Security Council was operating outside its mandate and in conflict with UN principles and international law.

A new UN Council should be set up to deal with countries which find themselves without a viable government. The UN needs a "Governance Council" to deal with situations like the aftermath of the war against Iraq in 2003.

Attitude and commitment

What is most needed in the United Nations, in the General Assembly and in the Security Council but especially from America, Britain (and Israel), is a transformation of attitudes and commitment to the aims and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. If there had been true commitment to these over many years Iraq would not be the ruined country that it now is and the United Nations would be enjoying the honour and respect of the world. If an invasion of Iraq had, in spite of everything, taken place then the UN might well have been welcomed into Iraq to advise or even temporarily administer the country at this difficult time.

Members of the General Assembly lack initiative, and are too subservient in the face of American power. They should appreciate that a combination of all members of the General Assembly would be an irresistible force. World opinion rejects American violence in the service of American businesses. By acting together they need not be intimidated by threats from America or other countries.

 Recommendation

Countries which frequently show their antagonism and lack of commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter should be considered for suspension or expulsion. The General Assembly has power to do this under Article 18/2.

Article 6 of the Charter of the United Nations needs amending. According to this article "a member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the principles contained in the present charter may be expelled from the organisation by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." The Security Council requirement should be deleted from this article. The behaviour of the United States, Britain (and Israel - which has made a mockery of the UN by flouting UN resolutions over several decades) should be debated. A further reason for amending this article is that it contradicts Article 18/2 which clearly authorises the General Assembly to suspend or expel members.

The most serious anomaly in the Charter of the United Nations must be corrected. There is no justification for the power of the five permanent members of the Security Council to veto any decision of the Security Council and some decisions of the General Assembly. In theory any one of these members could veto a change of rules which would scrap the veto. No organisation can commit itself to total rigidity. The General Assembly must require the Security Council to abolish the veto. The veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council is in conflict with the principle stated in the preamble to The Charter of the United Nations that all nations are equal.

Another necessary change is the enlargement of the Security Council. All regions of the world must be permanently represented. There should be Regional Security Councils (representing, for example, South America, South East Asia, Pacific Islands, Western Europe, and so on) which meet from time to time to discuss major concerns. Their elected representative should sit on the existing Security Council in New York. In this way even the smaller countries would have a means of influencing the Security Council.

Accountability

Another necessary transformation is that the United Nations must become more accountable. This must take many forms.

The general public, and the media need to be familiar with the aims and principles of the United Nations and basic international law and, armed with this knowledge, must be vigorous in publicising and questioning the behaviour of the General Assembly and Security Council, and, in Britain, the roles played by British representatives. It is up to all of us to hold it to account.

The Security Council is required to report to the General Assembly. It is necessary for the General Assembly to assess far more critically what it is told. When there has been gross abuse of international law and the Charter of the United Nations as described above, those guilty must be held to account. When the International Criminal court cannot act this may require the setting up of tribunals, like the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal, to try the individuals responsible for such crimes as genocide and crimes against humanity.

As already discussed, a Scrutiny Committee should be set up to constantly monitor the work of the Security Council and to advise and report on its findings.

In Britain we need to ensure that Members of Parliament in particular and the whole of the British public are aware of the basic requirements of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Parliament needs to be active in holding the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and our Ambassador to the United Nations to account for their actions with regard to the United Nations. There needs to be a special committee to monitor Britain’s relationship with the United Nations and to bring the public spotlight to bear on this.

THE ROLE OF PEOPLE OF GOODWILL

When a hundred million people around the world marched on 15 February 2003 against the proposed attack on Iraq they were marching in support of the United Nations Charter which speaks of ridding the world of the scourge of war, and resolving international disputes by peaceful means. Those of us who are familiar with the ideals of the charter the United Nations must work to spread the knowledge of the true United Nations and do what we can to urge people everywhere to support it and reform its workings in order to promote world peace. There is a large receptive audience around the world instinctively in tune with the Charter of the United Nations.

This requires all of us to write letters and articles, join phone-ins, hand out literature, and lobby to the best of our abilities. Our targets will include the media, Members of Parliament, peace groups, churches, NGOs, students, and the people of the USA.

World peace is not a utopian dream. For many centuries bitter wars ravaged Europe. Europeans, for the most part, have abandoned such primitive behaviour with tremendous benefits for everyone. It is surely possible that worldwide peace and security could break out. At the very least we must halt America’s policy of war without end.

David Roberts
Press Officer
Action for UN Renewal
18 November 2003.