'Uniting for Peace', the UN resolution that could stop the Iraq war

[*d*]

Where is it?
Under the 'Uniting for Peace' UN resolution 377A (applied in 1950), seven members of the UN Security Council or a majority of the UN General Assembly can order the US lead war on Iraq stopped. The ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution provides a way to stop an aggressor of war when a lack of unanimity exists among permanent members of the Security Council (France, China, Russia, UK, US) and international peace is threatened. If the US and UK ignore such a resolution their UN permanent memberships could be suspended. The General Assembly could even meet as fast as 24 hours to consider such a matter, and could recommend collective measures of its UN members, including the use of armed forces.
The Uniting for Peace resolution was first used by the US after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956 and Britain & France attacked and occupied parts of the canal. Cease-fire UN resolutions in the Security Council were quickly vetoed by Britain and France. The US went to the General Assembly calling for a cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces. An emergency session was held under the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution; the US resolution and subsequently an even stronger resolution passed the General Assembly. In the face of these resolutions it took less then a week for Britain and France to withdraw.
Uniting for Peace was next used by the US to pressure the Soviet Union to cease its intervention in Hungary in 1956. The Soviet Union had used its veto to prevent the passage of an anti-intervention resolution in the Security Council. Again, an emergency session of the General Assembly was held and the Soviet Union was ordered to stop its intervention in Hungary.
The resolution has been used 8 other times and could be used again on the Iraq war if only another UN member nation calls an emergency session of the General Assembly on the matter. But, where is it?
The US has so far sent letters to all UN members demanding them to avoid calling such a session and implement the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution.

d

 

[ocean976124]

If the US and UK ignore such a resolution their UN permanent memberships could be suspended.

Ha, ha, ha, ha. I'd like to see the UN try to do anything without the US or UK....

 

[*d*]

There is 191 members of the UN. The majority are opposed.

d

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Oh that's intelligent now!

There is 191 members of the UN. The majority are opposed.

d

Bullsh*t!

The UN has never had, and never will have any balls unless the U.S. is involved. At this point I begining to even question the relevance of the U.N. Protest loud and strong and keep dictators in power!

 

[widowmaker]

Without the U.S. and Britain the U.N. has very little firepwower in relation to the so called western world . It has been shown that both Russia and China while opposed are not willing to do anything because they have more pressing needs like FOOD, and in China 's case Norh Korea, so what you have left are a lot of countries like Canada who will not commit to anything so now what do you do? Alas do you really think that the U.S. or U.K. would care if thier UN privliges were revoked? It would just mean less hassle for both of these countries who are repeatedly asked by the UN for help in many different situations. This clause would hold little weight and that is why it is not a consideration. IMHO.

 

[papasmerf]

*d*


Face it you and those who research with you are not the majority.

 

[Paul Waters]

I think it is far from clear that the Rest of the World could defeat the US, if it every came to that.

And I find that, very disturbing.

 

[timmy]

why don't we all stop all this back and forth and get back to what we are good at....paying for sex, and being payed for sex.

just a thought.

timmy

 

[pblues]

It would be interesting to find out who the Liberals surveyed when they claimed to have spoke to average Canadians. They claimed the majority of Canadians were against the war. What a load of crap.

 

[*d*]

Wasn't it Bush that said, "you're either with us or against us"? If 45 nations are backing Bush on the Iraqi war. Then, in his words, 145 UN member nations must be against the Iraqi war. And in a majority are against the war, but in actual fact many of these nations are just silent or sitting on the fence. And that includes the majority of Bush's 45 nation 'coalition of the willing'. These nations say they support and that's as far as it goes.
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, in an address to the lower house of parliament yesterday, argued that the Bush administration had exaggerated its support from the 'coalition of the willing.'
"This coalition is a made-up thing, which in reality only consists of the United States and Britain," Ivanov said.
Aside from Spain and Australia, Ivanov said the coalition members "were either silent or signaled indirectly that they don't oppose such actions."
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/20/iraq/main544755.shtml

d

 

[papasmerf]

*d*
Your rhetoric is becoming tiresome.

Previous posts, you have made has made it clear you are a Muslim.
NOW sir you have yet to answer my question.

WHO IS THE WHITE DEVIL??????

As this is a question of your HONOR you will answer this, as well as who is the WESTERN DEVIL.

 

[papasmerf]

and the cutting and pasting... you would think he would be able to state his opinion, using his own words

You assume he is one person
As I have stated in the past I suggest it is several people.

 

[Cinema Face]

The UN is just a debating society

That's ridiculous
The UN didn't intervene during many massacres during it's history. Witness Cambodia, Rwanda, Somalia.
Also, France, Russia and China are certainly no saints. China invaded Tibet, Russia invaded Chechnya and France invaded Ivory Coast, all without UN approval. Why does the US need UN approval?

 

[papasmerf]

*d* Come out come out where ever you are!!!!!!!!!!

 

[*d*]

"d" ... france, germany & russia are just aginst this war because they stand to lose billions in trade with iraq

Why would they lose trade in a post-war Iraq? Is the US going to tear up those contracts and write in their own names instead?

France ignored the UN trade sactions against iraq for the last 12 years... Saddam even funded chirac's campaign when he ran for mayor of paris. France supplied iraq with nuclear reators, knowing that iraq was using them to produce materials for a weapons program... I guess you must think that is all ok & it is all really the evil americans fault

Yes, yes, its even in todays Guardian that France exporting $212 million of goods to Iraq compared to Britians $27 million. But its all legal. Under UN resolution 670, countries can fly into Iraq personally and negotiate trade with the Security Council's sanctions 661 committee. The committee can authorize countries to sell humanitarian goods to Iraq if their requests are considered valid. France sold a considerable amount more than Britain. But legally.

And papasmerf, I'm not Muslim, nor am I more than one person .

d

 

[papasmerf]

OH *d* are you in here??????

 

[papasmerf]

Ah there you are

 

[*d*]

Re: The UN is just a debating society

That's ridiculous
The UN didn't intervene during many massacres during it's history. Witness Cambodia, Rwanda, Somalia.
Also, France, Russia and China are certainly no saints. China invaded Tibet, Russia invaded Chechnya and France invaded Ivory Coast, all without UN approval. Why does the US need UN approval?

UN members can not LEGALLY go to war unless they have UN approval, its in self-defence or its on humanitarian basis. Bush claims the Iraq war is in self-defence. But its a pre-emptive attack and pre-emptive self-defence is illegal under a UN charter of international laws.

d

 

[papasmerf]

Re: Re: The UN is just a debating society

UN members can not LEGALLY go to war unless they have UN approval, its in self-defence or its on humanitarian bases. Bush claims the Iraq war is in self-defence. But its a pre-emptive attack and pre-emptive self-defence is illegal under a UN charter of international laws.

d

Do you realize how foolish you sound?????


Since when has war only been declared by democratic vote??????

When the chineese ary opened fire on students did the UN sanction it????

When Russia claimed a large portion of Europe and Asia as its own did the UN say.... Oh sure it's yours to have??????


Now if i am wrong about your being a member of ISLAM I appologize to you.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Has anyone actually read Resolution 1441?

Read it here and then tell me that Iraq is not in direct breach of this Resolution.

This war has UN approval. Even if indirectly, it's still approved.