Come si puo' fermare la guerra all'Onu

[Carlo Gubitosa <c.gubitosa at peacelink.it>]

C'e' un modo per fermare l'attacco all'iraq, una volta che e' stato 
iniziato: basta che un qualunque stato richieda la procedura chiamata 
"uniting for peace" all'assemblea generale dell'ONU. Ed e' gia' stato 
usato: guardate qui: http://www.counterpunch.org/brecher03052003.html (in 
inglese). Riusciamo a diffondere la notizia il piu' possibile, a livello 
mondiale?

Ho trovato questo link sul sito http://www.kuro5hin.org, e' un sito di 
cultura generale molto interessante. Di seguito riporto il testo integrale 
in inglese, prima cerchero' di spiegarlo in poche parole.

nota:
il testo originale della proposta che riporto in questo articolo e' 
reperibile su: http://www.counterpunch.org/brecher03052003.html

mio commento:
esiste una procedura chiamata "uniting for peace" per richiedere un 
"cessate il fuoco" che puo' essere richiesta da UN QUALSIASI stato membro 
dell'Assemblea Generale delle Nazioni Unite. Una volta richiesta, scatta 
una votazione durante una sessione di emergenza dell'Assemblea, che puo' 
proporre un cessate il fuoco immediato. E' gia' stato usato dieci volte 
negli ultimi anni, perlopiu' per iniziativa degli Stati Uniti (ironia della 
sorte).
Ad esempio, quando l'Egitto nazionalizzo' il Canale di Suez nel 1956, il 
Regno Unito, la Francia e Israele invasero l'Egitto e iniziarono a puntare 
verso il Canale di Suez. Gli stati uniti proposero una risoluzione (che non 
puo' essere vetata come accade all'interno del Consiglio di Sicurezza) per 
il cessate il fuoco immediato. Francia e Gran Bretagna si ritirarono in una 
settimana. (non ricordo le decisioni di Israele, purtroppo).

Purtroppo non sono un esperto di diritto internazionale ne' di procedure 
delle Nazioni Unite. Tuttavia non avendo visto ancora una proposta come 
questa sui media nazionali, provo a pubblicarla in un anti-media come 
questo sito.

Se la proposta e' valida, va fatta circolare. Si dovrebbero informare 
quante piu' persone possibili in tutto il mondo, in modo che arrivi anche 
alle "alte sfere" che possono proporre una cosa simile all'Assemblea Generale.

Ho solo una richiesta da fare: NON mandate questo testo come spam mail. Non 
fatene tante copie e mandatela a tutti quelli che conoscete, perche' non 
serve a niente. Mandatela in posti mirati, mailing list, gruppi di 
discussione, e soprattutto PARLATENE. Non sottovalutiamo il potere del 
"pettegolezzo".

speriamo nel buon senso comune. buona fortuna a tutti

---inizio testo originale---

What Can the World Do, If Bush Attacks Iraq?
Uniting for Peace

By JEREMY BRECHER


If the US attacks Iraq without support of the UN Security Council, will the 
world be powerless to stop it? The answer is no. Under a procedure called 
"Uniting for Peace," the UN General Assembly can demand an immediate 
ceasefire and withdrawal. The global peace movement should consider 
demanding such an action.

When Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956, Britain, France, and Israel 
invaded Egypt and began advancing on the Suez Canal. U.S. President Dwight 
D. Eisenhower demanded that the invasion stop. Resolutions in the UN 
Security Council called for a cease-fire--but Britain and France vetoed 
them. Then the United States appealed to the General Assembly and proposed 
a resolution calling for a cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces. The 
General Assembly held an emergency session and passed the resolution. 
Britain and France withdrew from Egypt within a week.

The appeal to the General Assembly was made under a procedure called 
"Uniting for Peace." This procedure was adopted by the Security Council so 
that the UN can act even if the Security Council is stalemated by vetoes. 
Resolution 377 provides that, if there is a "threat to peace, breach of the 
peace, or act of aggression" and the permanent members of the Security 
Council do not agree on action, the General Assembly can meet immediately 
and recommend collective measures to U.N. members to "maintain or restore 
international peace and security." The "Uniting for Peace" mechanism has 
been used ten times, most frequently on the initiative of the United States.

The Bush Administration is currently promoting a Security Council 
resolution that it claims will authorize it to attack Iraq. However, huge 
opposition from global public opinion and most of the world's governments 
make such a resolution's passage unlikely.

What will happen if the US withdraws its resolution or the resolution is 
defeated? The US is currently indicating that it will attack Iraq even 
without Security Council approval. The US would undoubtedly use its veto 
should the Security Council attempt to condemn and halt its aggression. But 
the US has no veto in the General Assembly.

Lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights have drafted a proposed 
"Uniting for Peace" resolution that governments can submit to the General 
Assembly. It declares that military action without a Security Council 
resolution authorizing such action is contrary to the UN Charter and 
international law.

The global peace movement can begin right now to discuss the value of such 
a resolution. If we conclude it is worthwhile, we can make it a central 
demand, for example in the next round of global anti-war demonstrations. 
Then we can mobilize pressure on governments that claim to oppose the war 
-- the great majority of UN members -- to demand that they initiate and 
support such a resolution.

Countries opposed to such a war can be asked to state now that, if there is 
a Security Council deadlock and a US attack on Iraq is imminent or under 
way, they will convene the General Assembly on an emergency basis to 
condemn the attack and order the US to cease fire and withdraw.

The sooner global public discussion begins laying the groundwork for such 
action the better. Wide public advocacy will help governments overcome 
their probable reluctance to take such a step. Further, the threat of such 
global condemnation may help deter the Bush administration--and to a much 
greater extent deter its wobbling allies--from launching such an attack in 
the first place.

Jeremy Brecher is a historian and the author of twelve books including 
STRIKE! and GLOBALIZATION FROM BELOW. He can be reached at: 
jbrecher at igc.org. Information on Uniting for Peace based on "A U.N. 
Alternative to War: 'Uniting for Peace" by Michael Ratner, Center for 
Constitutional Rights and Jules Lobel, University of Pittsburgh Law School.

---fine testo originale---