[Cerchio] COME SI PUO' FERMARE LA GUERRA ALL'ONU

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michele Scardaccione" <mscardaccione@???>
>
> COME SI PUO' FERMARE LA GUERRA ALL'ONU
>
> di Carlo Gubitosa - Peacelink
>
> 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@???. 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---
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Mc_forum mailing list
> Mc_forum@???
> http://www.inventati.org/mailman/listinfo/mc_forum
>