The following article was published in "The Guardian", newspaper of the
Communist Party of Australia in its issue of Wednesday, 29 January 2003.
Contact address: 65 Campbell Street, Surry Hills. Sydney. 2010 Australia.
Phone: (612) 9212 6855 Fax: (612) 9281 5795.
CPA Central Committee: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The Guardian": <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Webpage: http://www.cpa.org.au>
Subscription rates on request.
******************************
NO US WAR, NO UN WAR.
As The Guardian goes to press, the UN Security Council is considering
reports from the weapons inspectors. Regardless of the outcome of that
discussion, war against Iraq should be opposed. Whether launched by a US
pre-emptive strike or endorsed by the United Nations Security Council,
such a war has no justification and would result in the most horrendous
outcomes for the people of Iraq. The time has come when war must be
eliminated from the affairs of humanity and all disputes resolved by
peaceful means, in accordance with the UN's Charter.
Weapons of mass destruction, the most powerful of which are held by the
US military, have become so horrendous in their destructive power and in
their ability to kill that entire nations could be obliterated. The
Voice of America has threatened the "annihilation" of Iraq.
The Chief of US armed forces, Myers has declared that on the first day
of action against Iraq weapons with a destructive power more than those
used in the two months of the 1991 Gulf War would be unleashed.
There is absolutely no case for war on Iraq, even if it were endorsed by
the UN Security Council.
Here are nine reasons why a UN Security Council war resolution should
also be opposed:
1. A war on Iraq will cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
civilians -- men, women and children. It would further destroy Iraq's
health system, water supplies, electric power and other facilities
necessary for life. More territory will be poisoned by the use of
uranium enriched weapons.
The Voice of America warned that "war plans are laid out for complete
annihilation of Iraq via conventional weapons, or if needed, via nuclear
weapons".
2. The Charter of the United Nations gives the Security Council the
obligation to settle disputes without recourse to war. Millions around
the world expect the Security Council to carry out its obligations. It
should support the majority of the world's people and decisively reject
any war resolution.
If members of the Security Council are bribed or pressured into
supporting a war resolution, it would be a violation of the UN Charter
and their obligations. Despite its weaknesses the Security Council must
act to prevent war, uphold peace and its humanitarian obligations.
3. In the present period, Iraq has not invaded or threatened any
neighbouring state. Iraq certainly poses no threat to the US, Britain or
Australia.
4. There is no proof that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction
following the destruction of such weapons in previous years.
5. A "regime change" which has been repeatedly claimed as the objective
of the United States, is the responsibility of the Iraqi people and not
any outside power. This would also be a violation of the UN Charter and
is a violation of the sovereign independence of nations.
A UN-authorised war would, in fact, hand over operations to the United
States and would make the UN Security Council an agent of the violation
of its own Charter. The UN would become the virtual prisoner of the
United States and subservient to it.
6. Iraq would become an occupied country with a government imposed by
the United States as has already happened in Afghanistan. Far from
bringing genuine democracy, an imposed government would serve the
interests of the US.
7. If the UN Security Council endorsed a war against Iraq it would set a
precedent for similar action against any other country against which was
alleged to have weapons of mass destruction or named as being a "rogue
state" by the US and its few supporters.
8. Any war against Iraq would have devastating economic consequences,
not only for Middle East countries but also for the whole world. It
would give the United States control of the main supplies of oil and
result in the economies of most countries being placed under the control
of the US corporations.
9. A vote for war would be a vote leading to the virtual destruction of
the UN and would show its inability to enforce the UN Charter and its
responsibilities to the people of the world to uphold peace.
The only principled stand is to oppose any war, whether authorised by
the UN Security Council or not. The world's people want peace.
****************************************************************************
--
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Sub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
