Workers Daily Internet Edition Year 2003 No. 22

Year 2003 No. 22, March 20, 2003	ARCHIVE	HOME	SEARCH	SUBSCRIBE

Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA.
Phone: (Local Rate from outside London 0845 644 1979) 020 7627 0599
Web Site: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail: office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to Workers' Publication Centre):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
70p per issue, £2.70 for 4 issues, £17 for 26 issues, £32 for 52 issues (including postage)
Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10

All Out Against Blair and Bush's War!

School Students Stage Mass Anti-War Protests

Turkey to Vote Only on Limited Support for US War against Iraq

Turkey's government says it will ask parliament only to approve US military overflights to Iraq, signalling the end of Washington's urgent efforts to deploy thousands of US troops on Turkish soil.

A senior US official said Ankara's allowing the United States to use Turkish airspace and bases to fly into Iraq would not justify any of the billions of dollars in aid the United States had pledged in an earlier plan to station ground troops for a "northern front" against Iraq.

"The motion we will present today [Wednesday] will be to allow the transit of US military aircraft and Turkish soldiers to be deployed abroad," government spokesman Cemil Cicek said. The motion would be presented on Wednesday and face a vote on Thursday

"If further requests emerge in the future we will evaluate them but at this moment the request from the United States is for permission for overflights through Turkish airspace."

Cemil Cicek added that the two countries have also agreed on a Turkish deployment of troops in northern Iraq, to set up a buffer zone and prevent a mass exodus of refugees from Iraq to Turkey.

The announcement followed an unexpected meeting on Tuesday between Turkish Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul and his US counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld.

US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad said that Iraqi parties "have committed themselves to fully cooperate with the coalition and to put whatever forces they have under the command and control of the coalition commanders," he said.

A senior State Department official, who asked not to be named, said overflights alone would not justify direct financial compensation.

Parliament rejected a motion to allow 62,000 US troops into the country in a vote on March 1.

Last month, Turkey said the United States offered up to $30 billion in aid, including $6 billion in grants, during talks on using Turkish territory to launch a ground attack. But that offer has expired.

Turkey might still benefit financially, said a US official: "We do not want to see the Turkish economy collapse," he said, without providing further details.

Turkey no longer qualifies for financial aid from Washington but funds may be channelled from the IMF and World Bank to help bolster its heavily indebted economy, recovering from the worst recession since 1945, a Turkish official said.

Greece Will Not Participate in War not Approved by UN

A war in Iraq could trigger a major international crisis and it should be executed only with the consent of the UN, Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis said. He spoke after an emergency government meeting on Tuesday. Costas Simitis voiced his government's support for the UN as the institution playing a leading role in developments related to Iraq. While insisting Greece will not participate in a US-led war, he said the country will honour any obligations arising from existing treaties and does not intend to block the use of US military bases on its territory.

Albania and Romania Express Support for US

Albanian Foreign Minister Ilir Meta expressed support on Tuesday for military intervention against Iraq. He said Saddam Hussein's regime was to blame for the current situation, as UN Security Council's resolution 1441 offered the last chance to solve the crisis peacefully. He reiterated that while a military solution was the not the best one, the continuing impasse was even worse.

In Bucharest on Tuesday, the Romanian Supreme Defence Council vowed to support the US ultimatum against Iraq. Romania has offered to send units trained to handle chemical and biological decontamination, engineering and medical assistance, and military police to a border nearby.

Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq

by Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank, published on Tuesday, March 18, 2003, by the Washington Post

As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged – and in some cases disproved – by the United Nations, European governments and even US intelligence reports.

For months, President Bush and his top lieutenants have produced a long list of Iraqi offences, culminating Sunday with Vice President Cheney's assertion that Iraq has "reconstituted nuclear weapons." Previously, administration officials have tied Hussein to al Qaida, to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of these charges in his address to the nation last night.

But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the administration's evidence – such as Bush's assertion that Iraq sought to purchase uranium – has been refuted by subsequent discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their validity can be known only after US forces occupy Iraq.

In outlining his case for war on Sunday, Cheney focused on how much more damage al Qaida could have done on Sept. 11 "if they'd had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax." He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaida leaders "have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years."

But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless he decided helping "terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," the vice president argued that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was "only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons." Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that "there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities."

ElBaradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminium tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminium tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. ElBaradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons and "it was highly unlikely" that the tubes could have been used to produce nuclear material.

Cheney on Sunday said ElBaradei was "wrong" about Iraq's nuclear programme and questioned the IAEA's credibility.

Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in Bush's State of the Union address.

In another embarrassing episode for the administration, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about Iraq's weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British report's evidence was based in part on academic papers and trade publications.

Sometimes information offered by Bush and his top officials is questioned by administration aides. In his March 6 news conference, Bush dismissed Iraq's destruction of its Al Samoud-2 missiles, saying they were being dismantled "even as [Hussein] has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles." But the only intelligence was electronic intercepts that had individuals talking about being able to build missiles in the future, according to a senior intelligence analyst.

Last month, Bush spoke about a liberated Iraq showing "the power of freedom to transform that vital region" and said "a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region." But a classified State Department report put together by the department's intelligence and research staff and delivered to Powell the same day as Bush's speech questioned that theory, arguing that history runs counter to it.

In his first major speech solely on the Iraqi threat, last October, Bush said, "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles – far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations – in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."

Inspectors have found that the Al Samoud-2 missiles can travel less than 200 miles – not far enough to hit the targets Bush named. Iraq has not accounted for 14 medium-range Scud missiles from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but the administration has not presented any evidence that they still exist.

European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights Appeal to the European Governments and the UN Security Council

USA plans illegal military attack

A war against Iraq that aims to abolish the Government or to destruct Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction would mean a grave violation of international law, in particular of Art. 39 of the Charter of the United Nations. It would also violate Art. 2.4 of the Charter. Such violations have already committed through the perpetration of the air strikes in the "no-fly zones", which can be regarded as a non-declared war.

The USA can claim no justification under Art. 51 of the UN Charter, by way of self-defence. A right of preventive (anticipatory) self-defence is not recognized in international law. As long ago as 1981 the UN Security Council condemned Israel unanimously for destroying the Iraqi nuclear power plants in Tuweitha (Tamuz I). It described this action as a violation of international law, and ruled that Israel had no right of preventive (anticipatory) self defence. Five years later the UN condemned the USA for bombing Tripoli as revenge for the attack on the West Berlin discotheque La Belle, describing it as a violation of international law. At that time the USA for the first time tried to justify their air strike as being "preventive defence against terrorism". Such so called preventive defence actions are regarded in international law as aggressive actions.

There exist only two exemptions from the absolute prohibition of the use of force in Art. 2. of the UN Charter: the right of self defence enshrined in Art. 51 of the UN Charter, and the right of the UN Security Council, in case of a threat to or breach of international peace and security, and in case of an aggression, to take mandatory action by way of carrying out or authorising military measures against other states.

At present there is no state in the world that could lawfully claim the right of self defence against Iraq. Iraq is not attacking any country, it does not threaten any attack and it is not preparing a war against any country. Furthermore, the USA has never presented any proof of links between the Iraqi Government and Al-Quaeda. Therefore Iraq cannot be considered to be a terrorist threat.

The UN Security Council in its resolution 1441 has obliged the Government of Iraq to provide to the UN Security Council an up to date, accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction, and any holdings of such weapons. Meanwhile the Government of Iraq has provided the requested declaration. It now transpires that in an underhand manner the US Government has taken possession of these documents. The UN Security Council ought not to have allowed the USA as a party to a conflict to take hold of the original documents. The evaluation of the documents will be made more difficult by the possibility that these documents might have been changed by the USA.

In the meantime doubts have been expressed whether the report of the Iraqi Government complies with the Resolution 1441. This would give the UN the possibility to insist on completion of the report. The incompleteness of the report however cannot be a reason to order or allow military sanctions under Art. 42 of the UN Charter.

Even if Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or the necessary knowledge or technology to produce such weapons, this could not justify a war against Iraq. There are numerous states that possess weapons of mass destruction, of atomic, biological and chemical nature. This has never been judged by the UN Security Council to be a violation of the UN Charter with the consequence of military sanctions. By their refusal to sign an amendment to the Convention against the spread of biological weapons the US government facilitates the spread of such weapons. In this context it should be noted that the USA as well as various member states of the European Union have tolerated in the past the export of the necessary technology for the production of weapons of mass destruction.

There is no support for such action from the UN Security Council.

Up to now there is no resolution of the UN Security Council that could justify a military intervention against Iraq. Under the present conditions a decision of the UN Security Council could not in any event justify any kind of military intervention. Also Resolution 1441 of the UN Security Council does not give a justification for a military intervention. It only recalls that Iraq will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

The legal preconditions for a military intervention according to Art. 42 of the UN Charter are not satisfied at the moment. The Security Council has no right to accept or to decide upon a military intervention against Iraq arbitrarily. Such a decision would require according to Art. 39 that it can find that there is a threat to international peace and security, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression.

Even a partial violation of the UN-Resolutions cannot be regarded as a threat to peace. Therefore if politicians assert, that all UN Member-States have to obey any decision of the Security Council which authorizes the USA for a military intervention against Iraq, they are gravely mistaken. In the case of a UN Security Council resolution according to Art. 42, each Government will have to consider thoroughly whether the decision is consistent with the UN Charter, the NATO Treaty and its own constitution.

The measures upon which the Security Council decides must be adequate to maintain or to restore peace and security in the world. Making war against Iraq would provoke the exact opposite. Peace in the world would be in much more danger than before. The opinion of the German government as well as that of other governments is entirely justified, when it refuses any support to a war against Iraq because of the destabilising effect of such a war in the Middle East. The same argument was recently presented by the British parliamentary commission. The EALDH demands therefore of each Government that it refrains from any support for this war.

The Security Council is also obliged to take a clear and unambiguous decision. There must be no repeat of the situation where the UN Security Council takes a decision which, without allowing military intervention, explicitly provides the basis for such an intervention by states which have, with ulterior motives, lobbied for the resolution. As far as this is concerned the UN Resolution 1441 also is not sufficiently clear.

There is no case for assistance according to Art. 5 NATO Treaty

The requirements for assistance according to Art. 5 of the NATO Treaty have not been satisfied. This would only be the case if a member state of NATO was suffering an armed attack by Iraq. For the moment no NATO state can claim that due to Art. 5 it is obliged to support a military intervention by the US government against Iraq. For this reason there is no justification for the participation of Soldiers of other NATO States on AWACS flights.

On the contrary, an aggressive military action of the US would be a violation of Art. 1 of the NATO Treaty, by which member states are obliged to settle any international dispute by peaceful means in such a manner, that international peace, security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Even if Iraq would attack Turkey if Turkey should decide to support the US aggression Turkey would be the aggressor and not Iraq. Therefore there cannot be any kind of moral obligation for NATO Member-States to assist the USA in its illegal military intervention.

Any support of the illegal war of the USA by other Governments is illegal itself

According to Art. 2.5 of the UN Charter, Governments are obliged to refrain from giving assistance to the USA and its illegal war against Iraq. They are also obliged to refuse the use of military bases and resources in their countries, as well as logistic support to military aircraft and the landing of military aircraft if these actions are part of aggressive actions by the USA.

In most European countries that country’s constitution also forbids the respective government from giving assistance to the USA or any other country if it is undertaking illegal military measures against Iraq. According to the legal order of many European countries all actions which are a danger to international peace, in particular an aggressive war, are among the most heinous crimes, and attract severe punishment.

Any other obligations by individual states towards the USA or other states participating in the war have to be interpreted in conformity to the UN Charter, the NATO Treaty and its own constitution.

Weapons and soldiers of all European countries should be withdrawn from the area of conflict. This applies for example to the German tanks for detecting biological and chemical weapons which are based in Kuwait at present. It has also been argued that European states should not completely ruin their relationships with the USA. This is legally an unacceptable argument, and politically short sighted. As it happens, the war against Iraq is also criticized by many within the USA. Also the grant of fly-over rights for illegal military actions, the use of American bases in other countries, the transport of war material from third countries to the conflict area, the use of commando bases (like EUSCOM in Stuttgart-Vaihingern from where the illegal air strikes against Libya were coordinated) and the use of communications and infrastructure systems must be refused to the USA by European governments.

All European Governments are therefore requested

1. To undertake to refuse any assistance by national or NATO military forces to any illegal military acts of the USA against Iraq; this concerns in particular any kind of military action of the USA without a preliminary decision of the Security Council according to Art. 42 of the UN Charter

2. To use all diplomatic measures to prevent the US from undertaking an aggressive war against Iraq

3. To refuse any kind of economic or logistic support for such an illegal action; this applies also to reconnaissance flights undertaken in the conflict area, even if the airplanes are under the NATO command

4. To start immediately to withdraw military material and soldiers from the conflict area

5. To demand the scrupulous application of and adherence to the UN Charter, to the Chapter VII mechanisms of the UN Security Council and to insist that after the evaluation of the reports delivered by Iraq a new decision of the UN-Security council has to be taken

6. To seek the adoption of an unambiguous resolution of the UN Security Council which condemns any kind of military act

7. To re-examine thoroughly the legality of any intervention according to Art. 42 and to decide upon the participation on such an intervention only after a decision taken by the national parliament

8. To grant asylum to all deserting soldiers of the war-making countries

9. To grant extensive protection in particular the right of asylum for all refugees from Iraq

January 2003

http://www.ejdm.de/stop%20the%20war.htm

No War on Iraq

A Supreme International Crime

Any Member of a Government Backing an Aggressive War Will Be Open to Prosecution

by Mark Littman*, published on Monday, March 10, 2003, by the Guardian

The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the Security Council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defence or authorized by the Security Council.

Self-defence has no application here. Neither the United States nor the UK, nor any of their allies, is under attack or any threat of immediate attack by Iraq.

Nor is there any authority from the Security Council. Resolution 1441 does not constitute any such authority as the reference to "serious consequences" is not sufficiently precise to justify war. Whatever the US may have wanted, the resolution was deliberately vague because the council had not agreed on the use of force. A new resolution would therefore be required. It would have to be in unambiguous terms authorizing the use of force.

In the absence of such a resolution, the attack would, be unlawful. On this point I agree completely with the terms of the letter from 16 eminent international lawyers to 10 Downing Street published in last Friday's Guardian.

What would be the consequences of such illegality? Most obvious would be the human, economic and environmental costs, including any further violence that a war against Iraq might trigger. An illustration of how unpredictable and incalculable such costs might be is furnished by a recollection of the events of 1914. When the Hapsburg empire attacked the Serbs, the campaign was expected to be short because of the immense military superiority of Austria/Hungary over the Kingdom of Serbia. Four years later, the Hapsburg empire, together with those of Germany and Russia, lay in ruins. A residue of bitterness and hatred was left that bred an even worse war 20 years later in which there were more than 50 million fatalities. Who can say with certainty where today's threatened war might lead?

A second consequence would be of immense world significance, for it would mean the end of the United Nations and with it the final collapse of the efforts of the past century to create effective international institutions that would replace perpetual war with perpetual peace.

If attempts to create such international institutions were abandoned, the clock would be turned back to a time when nations had to depend for their security on the uncertain and shifting patterns of alliances and their own military defences. This would inevitably lead to more being spent on swords and less on ploughshares.

A third consequence might be grave for members of the governments that brought about this unlawful war. The United Nations Charter is a treaty, one to which 192 out of a total of 196 sovereign states in the world are parties. It takes precedence over all other treaties.

At the Nuremberg trials, the principles of international law identified by the tribunal and subsequently accepted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations included that the planning, preparation or initiation of a war contrary to the terms of an international treaty was "a crime against peace". The tribunal further stated "that to initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime".

It was for this crime that the German foreign minister Von Ribbentrop was tried, convicted and hanged. This case and the subsequent case of former Chilean president Pinochet show that it is not only governments but also individuals who can be held responsible for such a crime. Jurisdiction to try such a crime is not, for the foreseeable future, within the scope of the new International Criminal Court. It is, however, open to any country in the world to accept such jurisdiction. Some are already moving in that direction. Instances are the proceedings in the Belgian courts against Ariel Sharon in relation to alleged crimes in the Lebanon, and the active involvement of the courts of Spain in relation to alleged crimes against humanity said to have been committed by Pinochet. Members of any governments actively involved in bringing about an unlawful war against Iraq would be well advised to be cautious as to the countries they visit during the remainder of their lives.

In a remarkable statement to the US Senate on February 12, Senator Robert Byrd (West Virginia) described the US position. He referred to it as the "extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing" and said: "Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making." A refusal by the Security Council to authorize hostilities should provide a graceful way out of the box. Our government could lead the way.

* Mark Littman QC is author of Kosovo: War and Diplomacy (Centre for Policy Studies). He has written and lectured extensively on international law.

A number of readers have asked for the following documents to be reproduced:

Charter of the United Nations; June 26, 1945

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

CHAPTER I

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to a of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and. justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

CHAPTER VI

PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

Article 33

1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of a, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 34

The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 35

l. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.

2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.

3. The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Articles 11 and 12.

Article 36

1. The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.

2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.

3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

Article 37

1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

Article 38

Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.

CHAPTER VII

ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 4 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44

When Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 45

In order to enable the Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined, within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Committee.

Article 46

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

2. The Military Staff Committee consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities re- quires the participation of that Member its work.

3. The Military Staff Committee be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces paced at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish sub-commit- tees.

Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50

If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Indictment : Count One

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Charter of the International Military Tribunal

I. CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL

Article 1.

In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal'') for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis.

Article 2.

The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an alternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of the Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be present at all sessions of the Tribunal. In case of illness of any member of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to fulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place.

Article 3.

Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can be challenged by the prosecution, or by the Defendants or their Counsel. Each Signatory may replace its members of the Tribunal or his alternate for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no replacement may take place during a Trial, other than by an alternate.

Article 4

(a) The presence of all four members of the Tribunal or the alternate for any absent member shall be necessary to constitute the quorum.

(b) The members of the Tribunal shall, before any trial begins, agree among themselves upon the selection from their number of a President, and the President shall hold office during the trial, or as may otherwise be agreed by a vote of not less than three members. The principle of rotation of presidency for successive trials is agreed. If, however, a session of the Tribunal takes place on the territory of one of the four Signatories, the representative of that Signatory on the Tribunal shall preside.

(c) Save as aforesaid the Tribunal shall take decisions by a majority vote and in case the votes are evenly divided, the vote of the President shall be decisive: provided always that convictions and sentences shall only be imposed by affirmative votes of at least three members of the Tribunal.

Article 5.

In case of need and depending on the number of the matters to be tried, other Tribunals may be set up; and the establishment, functions, and procedure of each Tribunal shall be identical, and shall be governed by this Charter.

II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article 6.

The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; [semicolon changed to a comma according to protocol rectifying discrepancy] or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

Article 7.

The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

Article 8.

The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

Article 9.

At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization.

After the receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such notice as it thinks fit that the prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make such declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal shall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application is allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall be represented and heard.

Article 10.

In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individual to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.

Article 11.

Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before a national, military or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of this Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group or organization and such court may, after convicting him, impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such group or organization.

Article 12.

The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings against a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this Charter in his absence, if he has not been found or if the Tribunal, for any reason, finds it necessary, in the interests of justice, to conduct the hearing in his absence.

Article 13.

The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These rules shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter.

III. COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS

Article 14.

Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the investigation of the charges against and the prosecution of major war criminals.

The Chief Prosecutors shall act as a committee for the following purposes:

(a) to agree upon a plan of the individual work of each of the Chief Prosecutors and his staff,

(b) to settle the final designation of major war criminals to be tried by the Tribunal,

(c) to approve the Indictment and the documents to be submitted therewith,

(d) to lodge the Indictment and the accompany documents with the Tribunal,

(e) to draw up and recommend to the Tribunal for its approval draft rules of procedure, contemplated by Article 13 of this Charter. The Tribunal shall have the power to accept, with or without amendments, or to reject, the rules so recommended.

The Committee shall act in all the above matters by a majority vote and shall appoint a Chairman as may be convenient and in accordance with the principle of rotation: provided that if there is an equal division of vote concerning the designation of a Defendant to be tried by the Tribunal, or the crimes with which he shall be charged, that proposal will be adopted which was made by the party which proposed that the particular Defendant be tried, or the particular charges be preferred against him.

Article 15.

The Chief Prosecutors shall individually, and acting in collaboration with one another, also undertake the following duties:

(a) investigation, collection and production before or at the Trial of all necessary evidence,

(b) the preparation of the Indictment for approval by the Committee in accordance with paragraph (c) of Article 14 hereof,

(c) the preliminary examination of all necessary witnesses and of all Defendants,

(d) to act as prosecutor at the Trial,

(e) to appoint representatives to carry out such duties as may be assigned them,

(f) to undertake such other matters as may appear necessary to them for the purposes of the preparation for and conduct of the Trial.

It is understood that no witness or Defendant detained by the Signatory shall be taken out of the possession of that Signatory without its assent.

IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS

Article 16.

In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed:

(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial.

(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him.

(c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands.

(d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.

(e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.

V. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL

Article 17.

The Tribunal shall have the power

(a) to summon witnesses to the Trial and to require their attendance and testimony and to put questions to them

(b) to interrogate any Defendant,

(c) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary material,

(d) to administer oaths to witnesses,

(e) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by the Tribunal including the power to have evidence taken on commission.

Article 18.

The Tribunal shall

(a) confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the cases raised by the charges,

(b) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause reasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever,

(c) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate punishment, including exclusion of any Defendant or his Counsel from some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the determination of the charges.

Article 19.

The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.

Article 20.

The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of any evidence before it is entered so that it may rule upon the relevance thereof.

Article 21.

The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.

Article 22.

The permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be in Berlin. The first meetings of the members of the Tribunal and of the Chief Prosecutors shall be held at Berlin in a place to be designated by the Control Council for Germany. The first trial shall be held at Nuremberg, and any subsequent trials shall be held at such places as the Tribunal may decide.

Article 23.

One or more of the Chief Prosecutors may take part in the prosecution at each Trial. The function of any Chief Prosecutor may be discharged by him personally, or by any person or persons authorized by him.

The function of Counsel for a Defendant may be discharged at the Defendant's request by any Counsel professionally qualified to conduct cases before the Courts of his own country, or by any other person who may be specially authorized thereto by the Tribunal.

Article 24.

The proceedings at the Trial shall take the following course:

(a) The Indictment shall be read in court.

(b) The Tribunal shall ask each Defendant whether he pleads "guilty" or "not guilty.''

(c) The prosecution shall make an opening statement.

(d) The Tribunal shall ask the prosecution and the defense what evidence (if any) they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall rule upon the admissibility of any such evidence.

(e) The witnesses for the Prosecution shall be examined and after that the witnesses for the Defense. Thereafter such rebutting evidence as may be held by the Tribunal to be admissible shall be called by either the Prosecution or the Defense.

(f) The Tribunal may put any question to any witness and to any defendant, at any time.

(g) The Prosecution and the Defense shall interrogate and may crossexamine any witnesses and any Defendant who gives testimony.

(h) The Defense shall address the court.

(i) The Prosecution shall address the court.

(j) Each Defendant may make a statement to the Tribunal.

(k) The Tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence.

Article 25.

All official documents shall be produced, and all court proceedings conducted, in English, French and Russian, and in the language of the Defendant. So much of the record and of the proceedings may also be translated into the language of any country in which the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal considers desirable in the interests of the justice and public opinion.

VI. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

Article 26.

The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review.

Article 27.

The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a Defendant, on conviction, death or such other punishment as shall be determined by it to be just.

Article 28.

In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal shall have the right to deprive the convicted person of any stolen property and order its delivery to the Control Council for Germany.

Article 29.

In case of guilt, sentences shall be carried out in accordance with the orders of the Control Council for Germany, which may at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentences, but may not increase the severity thereof. If the Control Council for Germany, after any Defendant has been convicted and sentenced, discovers fresh evidence which, in its opinion, would found a fresh charge against him, the Council shall report accordingly to the Committee established under Article 14 hereof, for such action as they may consider proper, having regard to the interests of justice.

VII. EXPENSES

Article 30.

The expenses of the Tribunal and of the Trials, shall be charged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for maintenance of the Control Council of Germany.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm#art1

All Out Against Blair and Bush's War!

All Out Against Blair and Bush's War!

School Students Stage Mass Anti-War Protests

Turkey to Vote Only on Limited Support for US War against Iraq

Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq

European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights Appeal to the European Governments and the UN Security Council

No War on Iraq

A Supreme International Crime

For Your Information

Charter of the United Nations; June 26, 1945

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 Indictment : Count One

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 Charter of the International Military Tribunal

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Indictment : Count One

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Charter of the International Military Tribunal