Opposition
to an attack on Iraq should not be reversed by a resolution
from the UN Security Council because the Security Council
is dominated by the US, the very nation which wants
to launch the attack. The US has the means to coerce
and intimidate support for a Security Council resolution.
It does this by using its superior economic power to
bribe and bully the other members of the Security Council.
So
a UN Security Council Resolution would not indicate
the support of the world's nations or people for an
attack on Iraq.
The Security Council is not a body which is representative
of the will of the world's people. The General Assembly
of the UN would be more representative of world opinion,
but the General Assembly will not be consulted.
By
refusing to yield to a decision of the US-manipulated
Security Council we will strengthen the United Nations
as an independent body able to truly represent the
world's nations and people and add impetus to a process
of reform of the structure of the Security Council
to make it more representative. We want a strong,
independent UN which is not manipulated by any one
power.
The
UN itself violates its fundamental principles if it
authorises an armed attack on a sovereign state in
any circumstances except those of a grave and immediate
threat of aggression against one of its members -
circumstances which do not exist.
The
bottom line is that a UN Security Council resolution
in favour of an attack on Iraq will not change the
terrible world consequences that will flow from such
an attack (see below) - nor will it save the lives
of the many thousands of Iraqis that will die in the
attack.
If an attack on Iraq is wrong it remains wrong
regardless of the decisions of the UN Security Council.
We cannot tie our decision about war to such a resolution!
We,
in the peace movement, insist that any decision about
military action must reflect the will of the people
of the world and must not be tied to a decision of
the UN Security Council.
|