ZNet Commentary
A U.N. Alternative to War: “Uniting for Peace” February 08, 2003
By Michael Ratner
In the last few months the Bush Administration has been unyielding in
its march towards war over the objections of some allies and despite the
efforts of the United Nations. It now seems inevitable that the United
States, with some other countries, may soon engage in armed conflict in
Iraq. But for people around the world terrified by the current conflict,
there may be hope yet. That hope lies in a little-discussed mechanism of
the United Nations which, although it seems marginalized by American
power, has the potential to stop the war.
In 1950, the Security Council set up a procedure for insuring that
stalemates between countries would not prevent the United Nations from
carrying out its mission to "maintain international peace and security."
With the United States playing an important role in its adoption, the
Council adopted Resolution 377, the aptly named "Uniting for Peace" in
an almost unanimous vote.
Uniting for Peace provides that if, because of the lack of unanimity of
the permanent members of the Security Council (France, China, Russia,
Britain, United States), the Council cannot maintain international peace
where there is a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of
aggression," the General Assembly "shall consider the matter
immediately...." The language of Uniting for Peace would also allow its
use even if the Security Council approved the use of force against Iraq.
It can be employed "if the Security Council...fails to exercise its
primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security..."
The General Assembly can meet within 24 hours to consider such a matter,
and can recommend collective measures to U.N. members including the use
of armed forces to "maintain or restore international peace and security."
The Uniting for Peace resolution procedure has been used ten times since
1950. Its first use was by the United States. After Egypt nationalized
the Suez Canal in 1956 Britain and France attacked and occupied parts of
the canal. Cease-fire resolutions in the Security Council were quickly
vetoed by Britain and France. The United States went to the General
Assembly calling for a cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces. An
emergency session was held under the Uniting for Peace resolution; the
U.S. resolution and subsequently an even stronger resolution passed the
General Assembly. In the face of these resolutions it took less then a
week for Britain and France to withdraw.
Uniting for Peace was next used by the United States to pressure the
Soviet Union to cease its intervention in Hungary in 1956. The Soviet
Union had used its veto to prevent the passage of an anti-intervention
resolution in the Security Council. Again, an emergency session of the
General Assembly was held and the Soviet Union was ordered to stop its
intervention in Hungary.
In the current impasse over Iraq in the Security Council, Uniting for
Peace can and should be used. The General Assembly should consider
taking action with regard to the threat to the peace posed by U.S.
military action against Iraq taken without U.N. authority. (The General
Assembly could also act, as stated earlier, if the Security Council
authorized a war that was a "threat to international peace and
security.") It could require that no military action be taken against
Iraq without the explicit authority of the Security Council.
It could mandate that the inspection regime be permitted to complete its
inspections. It seems unlikely that the United States and Britain would
ignore such a measure. A vote by the majority of countries in the world,
particularly if it were almost unanimous, would make the unilateral rush
to war more difficult.
Uniting for Peace can be invoked either by seven members of the Security
Council or by a majority of the members of the General Assembly. This
gives those who oppose unilateral war a real opportunity for activism.
People everywhere in the world can lobby their governments to bring on
such a resolution. This effort can become a worldwide effort to, as the
UN Charter so eloquently states, "save succeeding generations form the
scourge of war."
(The CCR website has a draft resolution and other supporting Uniting for
Peace documents. www.ccr-ny.org)
Michael Ratner President, Center for Constitutional Rights
Jules Lobel Professor, Univ. of Pittsburgh Law School 1 412 648 1375
..
--
--
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
