|
|
|
|
  |
 |
 |
 |
|  |
Public Statements The United Nations and Iraq Joint statement issued by the United Nations Associations of Canada, Australia, Finland, Jamaica, Kenya, New Zealand, Russia, Tanzania, Uganda and United Kingdom. We, as a group of United Nations Associations, committed to the upholding of international law as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, believe that there is a proper way to address whatever crisis is deemed to exist in relation to the Government of Iraq and are calling on our Governments to ensure that correct procedures and actions are strictly adhered to in accordance with UN Security Council responsibilities. It is fully evident to us that no United Nations Security Council mandate exists which would legitimately enable the United States of America and/or other UN member states to make war on Iraq. As General Sir Michael Rose, former head of United Kingdom Special Forces and former head of the UN Protection Force in Bosnia, said in a British press article on 29th July,
We fully endorse that viewpoint. At the same time we accept that the current Government of Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, · is not representative of the wishes of the Iraqi people to
live in peace and justice; We also accept that the Government of Iraq is guilty of failing to comply fully with UN Security Council resolutions in relation to disarmament, especially in the sphere of weapons of mass destruction. We believe that it is right that the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors under Hans Blix should be enabled to enter Iraq without further delay and to complete the task ascribed to them by the Council without let or hindrance. In that context, we welcome the invitation by the Iraqi Foreign Minister for Mr. Blix and a number of experts to visit Baghdad and believe that they should go there in order to finalize arrangements for their inspection programme to start without delay. Governments should not be panicked into taking rash actions against Iraq, if this process is not completed as quickly as desired, on the supposed basis that Iraq is near to having both weapons of mass destruction of one or more types and some form of delivery system for them - the evidence for which remains flimsy and largely unpublished, making it impossible adequately to judge it. We are deeply fearful less recourse to war would prove far more costly in terms of lives - both military (on both sides) and civilian - than is claimed. The evidence of losses, especially of Yugoslav and Afghan civilians, in the "precision" military campaigns in both countries leaves us in no doubt on this issue. The Middle East region, not least due to the impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship, is in a very fragile state, exacerbated by the threatened and actual activities of al Qaida and other extremist groups. Renewed warfare against Iraq could have massively negative repercussions over a very wide area. If there is a genuine case - and we accept that there is - for which Saddam Hussein and those around him should answer, we believe that the Security Council might wish to announce a specific timetable for Iraq's compliance with its demands, not least in relation to UNMOVIC. It could state that, if that timetable is not met, it would be willing to discuss what further measures it might feel required to take to ensure compliance. As a final resort, the specific authorization of military action might need to be considered; but we believe that the possibility of indictment of those deemed responsible in Iraq for the suffering of the people and for the current crisis should be actively considered. Even if the newly created International Criminal Court is not competent to hear this case, the Council could devise a legal way to approach the issue which was beyond dispute. We remain deeply concerned that, for a multiplicity of reasons, some of which can be laid at the door of the Iraqi Government, so many innocent Iraqi civilians are still suffering greatly as a result of those economic sanctions still in force against Iraq. They are clearly hurting much of the civilian population much more than the leaders of the régime. We are determined to continue the struggle, in friendship with the Iraqi people, to secure their lifting at the earliest opportunity.
(a) to seek the early entry of the UNMOVIC inspectors, using every possible channel - diplomatic and other - to achieve this. The invitation from the Iraqi Government should be fully tested by the visit of Mr. Blix and his team being carried out without delay; (b) to seek by all possible means to avoid warfare in the region and, in any case, to accept that, without a specific authorizing resolution of the UN Security Council, the pursuit of military action would be illegal under international law; (c) to use all possible means to avoid a final decision to take military action against Iraq, including serious consideration of the indictment of Saddam Hussein and those around him on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, if an adequate case is believed to exist. A change of government in Iraq through legal means would be a very positive outcome to the current situation; (d) to ease the further suffering of so many Iraqi civilians by lifting the economic sanctions which are so clearly hurting them rather than those in Iraq against whom they are aimed. Signed on 3 September 2002 by
|
