The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] The UN must hear your Voice of opposition!

The United Nations Security Council members must hear your opposition to War
on Iraq!

Negotiations at the UN have reached a stalemate as members of the Security
Council continue to disagree on a possible resolution. France and Russia
have consistently opposed U.S. and UK desires for an automatic trigger
resolution and continue the debate in the Security Council.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer has stated that the UN had a limited
time to agree to U.S./UK proposals. While campaigning for congressional
elections, President Bush stated, “If the United Nations can’t make its mind
up, if Saddam Hussein won’t disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him
for the sake of peace.” (BBC 10/23/02)

Some observers question whether the U.S./UK draft can be realistically
implemented or whether it is designed to create an environment that makes
Iraqi compliance virtually impossible.

After three days of negotiations at the UN (October 16-18), there is still
no agreement on any new resolutions to 'toughen' inspections, or to
authorize the use of force if/when Iraq fails to meet the requirements.
Some reports indicate the US has backed off of demanding 'automaticity' in
the resolution, i.e. an automatic invasion if Iraq trips up.  Round three
has begun.  There is still time to take action and show solidarity with
virtually all the countries of the world in opposing a unilateral US war
against Iraq.  Please read the background section below for the latest
information on the debate on Bush's resolution at the UN.


Send faxes and e-mails to China, France, and the Russian Federation urging
them to oppose any resolution authorizing the US to use military force
against Iraq.

If you have more time, contact the other active members of the Security
Council as well (go to , click on Main Bodies, then Security
Council, then Members, then pick the nation).

Keep the pressure up on Congress with calls, letters, faxes, e-mails, visits
and sit-ins!

Call five people you know and ask them to do the same, and to call five more

Contacting Foreign Missions to the UN

China, France and Russia are the permanent members of the UN Security
Council that have expressed opposition to the US war resolution and have
become an obstacle to the U.S. to take unilateral action against Iraq. For a
resolution to pass the 15 member Security Council it requires a unanimous
vote of the five permanent members plus 4 revolving members for a total of 9
votes. Therefore, any one permanent member has "veto" power.

Fax and Email addresses for China, France and the Russian Federation are as

Ambassador Jean-David Levitte
Permanent Representative of France to the UN
FAX: (212) 421-6889 or (212) 355-2763

Ambassador Wang Yingfan
Permanent Representative of the People's Republic of China to the UN
FAX: (212) 634-7626

Ambassador Sergei Lavrov
Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN
Fax: (212) 628-0252

You may also want to contact Denmark, currently heading the European Union:

Permanent Representative of Denmark to the UN
Fax: (212) 308-3384

Recommended statements:

As an American citizen, I oppose war against Iraq and any unilateral action
by the US against Iraq.

Since Iraq has accepted the weapons inspectors unconditionally, please vote
"No" on any UN resolution that authorizes the use of force.

Please reaffirm the goal of lifting the UN sanctions that have brought so
much suffering and death to the Iraqi people.

Note: Try to keep your message concise.

You can send a fax on line at the following site set up by Global Exchange:

Global Exchange is also encouraging everyone to hold press conferences,
teach-ins and other events on United Nations Day, October 24th, focusing
attention on international law and the role of the United Nations in
stopping an unprovoked attack against Iraq. Good locations would be local
court houses to emphasize that the US and the UN should respect the rule of
law, not the rule of force. For more information about how to organize an
event on October 24, email

Keeping Up the Pressure on Congress

If your Congressional Representative and Senator(s) voted for the war
resolution, continue to present the issue at events and their offices as

Attend their town meetings and campaign appearances and remind the audience
of his or her vote with questions, literature, and demonstrations.

Initiate and participate in demonstrations in front of their offices.
Conduct sit-ins.

Call in to the Capital Switchboard toll free NOW and all week to oppose the
War Resolution at:

                       1-800-839-5276 (if jammed try: 202-225-3121)

(For a listing of all Senate office phone numbers, go to: )

October 26th: Get Out and Protest!

Major anti-war protests are planned for Washington, DC, San Francisco,
Denver, Seattle, Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Terre Haute and other cities.
Over 130 cities are sending buses to DC and San Francisico.  To find out
about buses leaving from your area, check the International ANSWER website
at:  As we collect information about
local protests, we will try and post them on our home page at


Congress Votes for War...

Congress has voted to authorize the President to use force, to make war,
against Iraq.  It was us, concerned American citizens, who spoke up and
ensured that the vote would take place in Congress.  But Congressional
leaders refused our demands for fair and balanced hearings, holding hearings
that were instead dominated by hawks pushing hard for war.  Despite the fact
that the voices of opposition had to hold their own forums (such as Ohio
Rep. Dennis Kucinich¹s alternative hearings, featuring former chief weapons
inspector Scott Ritter and others), 156 votes were cast against the
President¹s war resolution.  It may not have been a victory; but given that
the administration managed to co-opt the Democratic Party leadership into
rushing the vote before the election, the fact that our calls and letters
could help generate that much opposition in such a short time is nothing
short of amazing.  It signals the beginning, not the end of the struggle to
prevent this war.

Mr. Bush Takes his Resolution to the UN...

Now the Bush Administration is pursuing a similar resolution at the UN.  On
Thursday, October 18th, the US backed away from its original resolution,
which is welcome news.  A draft of the US resolution submitted to the UN was
leaked to the New York Times and published on October 2nd, giving critics a
chance to critique it.  Here are some reviwers' comments about the draft:

[The draft says] "that Iraq shall provide... immediate, unconditional and
unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities... and any permanent
member of the Security Council may request to be represented on any
inspection team with the same right and protections...¹  This is one of
several booby traps in the text to make sure that the Iraqis don't accept
it...  The text also says: "teams shall be accompanied at the bases by
sufficient U.N. security forces...¹  What they are talking about is an an
occupation arrangement, similar to demands made at Rambouillet on
Yugoslavia.  Since the government of Iraq will not accept that, Iraqi
rejection will be used as a pretext for war."
­James Paul, Executive Director of Global Policy Forum

"The resolution is just a pretext for war.  No way Iraq, or any other state,
could accept such a resolution."
­Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law, University of Illinois.

"This is really just a blank check for an armed attack on Iraq."
­John Quigley, Professor of International Law at Ohio State University

...if the US Unilaterally attacks Iraq: Blame it all on France...

For nearly a month, the debate at the UN has been limited to the five
permanent members of the Security Council: Russia, China, Britain, France
and the United States.  After two days of debate on Wednesday and Thursday
(October 16-17), one Security Council diplomat has already concluded that
"It now all depends on Washington and Paris."  France is proposing two
resolutions: one to set out tough conditions for Iraq to cooperate with
weapons inspectors and a second threatening force if those conditions are
not met.

The US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, has briefed President Bush
that the majority of the 15 members of the Security Council oppose the US
resolution.  Thus on Thursday the Bush administration dropped language from
the resolution that would give the US presumptive authority to determine if
Iraq was cooperating sufficiently.  The original wording approved the use of
"all necessary means" against Iraq in the event of Iraqi violations of the
inspections process.  The new wording speaks vaguely of "serious
consequences." The revised draft would leave it up to the UN Security
Council to decide whether Iraq was in compliance, after hearing a report
from weapons inspectors (a process that could take many months).  The US has
rejected the French proposal, however, that would leave it up to the
Security Council to decide what action to take should Iraq fail to adhere to
the language of the resolution.

Nothing in the new US draft, however, would prevent the US from attacking
Iraq after the Security Council began deliberating how to react to failed
compliance by Iraq.  And one US spokesman denied reports that the US was no
longer seeking authority to use force against Iraq: "We have not and will
not back away from one resolution, he said, "We want a resolution with full
authority in the first and final resolution."

If the US continues to push for UN authorization to wage war (a UN
resolution that would directly violate the UN Charter), France may veto the
resolution.  If that happens, President Bush will be faced with the choice
of standing down, or waging a unilateral and illegal (under international
law) war against Iraq.  On October 11th, French President Jacque Chirac told
the Lebanese Parliament in Beirut: "Military action, the last option, is not
a foregone conclusion."  On October 16th, Chirac said France sought a
resolution "in line with the interests of the region as we see them," and if
that failed, France would "assume its responsibilities."  This is probably a
subtle threat that France may use its veto power to veto the US resolution.

French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has been openly critical of
Bush's resolution.  Speaking before the French National Assembly on October
8th, Raffarin said "There is no such thing as a clean war or an easy war...
Let us think of the civilians, let us think of the humanitarian consequences
for the 24 million Iraqis who already undergo sufferings that are an affront
to our conscience... The hypotheses surrounding a change of regime are
marked by uncertianties, and France is not the only country to harbour very
serious doubts on this subject."  Rafarrin spoke of "¹those who develop the
simplistic vision of good against evil.¹"  He quoted French poet Rene Char:
"¹Evil always come from further away than you realise, and may not die at
the barricade you have chosen.¹"

According to sources speaking to the Washington Post, President Bush feels
that if no agreement can be reached at the UN, and war results, it would not
be his fault: "The French will be responsible for it."

Meanwhile, the Rest of the World Requests a Debate:
Is the US Undermining the UN Charter?

On October 13th, the Martin-Belinga-Eboutou of Cameroon, the country holding
the Security Council Presidency for October, received a letter from South
African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
The letter requests that "All member states and permanent observers of the
United Nations should be afforded an opportunity to express their views on
these important developments that directly affect the purposes and
principles of the charter of the United Nations."

"From the elements we have read about in the media, it seems as if the UN is
being asked to declare war on Iraq," said Mr. Kumalo.  "If that¹s true, it
contradicts the very first paragraph of the UN Charter."

The UN Charter opens with the line: "We the peoples of the United Nations
determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which
twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind..."

Article 39 of the Charter makes it clear that the UN Security Council (and
not the United States) has the authority to decide what constitutes a breach
of the peace and what is the appropriate response.  It reads: "The Security
Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of
the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide
what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to
maintain or restore international peace and security."

Article 51 of the Charter provides that nothing in the Charter "shall impair
the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed
attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security
Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security."
But nowhere does the Charter provide for "pre-emptive" attacks, and it is
clear that the Security Council is the sole authority within the UN for
declaring war against other states.

If the vote were put to the General Assembly, even the French proposal would
not stand much of a chance of passing.  Most states oppose any US attack on


Position Statements Included (quotation marks added only where direct
quotations are involved)
For a full summary of statements made before the Security Council on behalf
of Council Members and other nations, on Friday, October 18th, go to:

Permanent Representative of the People's Republic of China to the United
Ambassador Wang Yingfan
350 East 35th Street, New York, N.Y. 10016
Telephone: (212) 655-6100, Telefax: (212) 634-7626
Position Statement: Mr. Zhang Yishan told the Security Council last week
that China favored a peaceful settlement under UN auspices.  He said the
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and other
countries in the region should be respected. He was pleased with the
unconditional acceptance of inspectors by Iraq.  Other Chinese officials
have expressed support for the French two-stage proposal, and China is
expected to abstain on any vote authorizing the use of force.

Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations
Ambassador Jean-David Levitte
One Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza, 245 East 47th Street, 44th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10017, Telephone: (212) 308-5700, Telefax: (212) 355-2763
Correspondence: French
Position Statement: "France's position has been clearly expressed by its
saying: No, there can be no automatic intervention."  --French President
Jacques Chirac

Russian Federation
Ambassador Sergei Lavrov
Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations
136 East 67th Street, New York, N.Y. 10021
Telephone: (212) 861-4900/4901/4902, Telefax: (212) 628-0252
Position Statement: Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it clear that
the case for military action against
Iraq remains unconvincing: "Russia does not have in its possession any
trustworthy data which would support
the existence of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq and we have not received from our partners such information as yet," he
said.  Russia is also seeking assurances that Iraq's debt of $8 billion
owing to Russia will still be payable after a US invasion.

*** please circulate widely ***

Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access!

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]