www.euobserver.com 17.03.2003 - 05:32 CET

JOSE MARÍA AZNAR - Spanish prime minister said it is hard to imagine Europe’s future without a transatlantic commitment. (Photo: Spanish EU Presidency, EFE) EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – US president George Bush has issued a deadline for UN Security Council members to rubber stamp the use of force against Iraq, motioning toward war within days.

Speaking after an emergency summit in the Azores, attended by leaders from Spain and the UK and the hosts, Portugal, the US president said he gave the other members of the Security Council 24 hours to agree to issue a deadline for the Iraq regime to disarm.

According to the rhetoric only two peaceful outcomes are now possible, the Iraqi government going into exile or complete disarmament.

With both of these scenarios extremely unlikely it is now clear that any deadline will be a de facto declaration of war and crucially that this war will go ahead with or without UN backing.

Last chance Mr Bush billed the deadline as an opportunity for the UN to get its "legs of responsibility back." Mr Blair was clearer, without a credible ultimatum "more debate just means more delay," he said.

France has repeatedly stated that they would veto any resolution that includes an automatic trigger for war.

The UK, US and Spain are now likely to push for a ‘moral majority’ securing the votes of nine of the 15 members of the security council regardless of any veto. If nine votes are not found, the new resolution is not likely to be put to the vote for fear that the already dubious legality of military force would be undermined.

On Sunday key members of the British government were claiming that resolution 1441, which spoke of "serious consequences" for non-disarmament by Iraq, gives legal cover for going to war despite the fact the US ambassador to the UN said this was not the case when the resolution was being negotiated.

Most undecided Security Council members are likely to opt not to back a move to war that is domestically unpopular, and one that will go ahead in any case.

Domestic problems In the past week the US has become more and more eager to press ahead with the military campaign but stayed the course of diplomacy in order to help UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's case at home.

Without a second resolution, Mr Blair may be faced with a wave of resignations including that of the former Foreign Minister and now leader of the House of Commons, Robin Cook.

The Spanish Premier, José Maria Aznar, is unlikely to face resignations but with polls indicating 80% of Spain’s population is against the war, his Partido Popular, commentators say, has already lost the next election.

Atlanticism Opening the press conference following the hour-long meeting, Portuguese Prime Minister, Durão Barroso, spoke of the symbolism of the Azores lying midway between Europe and North America and the importance of transatlantic ties.

Mr Blair echoed this sentiment "Europe and America should stand together on the big issues of the day." It is hard to imagine Europe’s future without a transatlantic commitment, added Mr Aznar.

Press Articles El Mundo Al-Bawaba BBC RTP Deutsche Welle La Stampa Corriere della sera

Declaration Guardian

Written by Andrew Beatty Edited by Lisbeth Kirk

www.euobserver.com BRUNO KAUFMANN - In order to be ready for such windows of opportunities in transnational politics we have to be ready to go beyond the surface of politics offered to us by "our leaders", political parties and much of the media.

EUOBSERVER / SALT&PEPPER - With just a days and hours before - as US President announced on the Azores yesterday - "the End of Diplomacy and the Start of the first War in the 21st Century" it is time to reflect on the state of Global and European politics. The announced war in the Gulf region is the expression of a of a very big problem: too much of brachial power (weapons and finances) are gathered in too few hands. Finally this has also been realized on the other side of the Atlantic. "What really has the insiders panicked", comments the Herald Tribune on the weekend, "is the irresponsibility of Bush and his team, their almost childish unwillingness to face up to problems that they don't feel like dealing like now".

Fast food politics But "Bush and his team" is of course not alone. Independently of the stand you may take, the War politics "on Terrorism" offers a big dose of black-and-white, good-and-bad, we-and-them ingredients. Ingredients, which in a world of superficial, fast-food politics and media are essential. What seems to work on a world stage can also be seen on a European level and in the political debates of many countries.

I want to give you an example from country, in which I spent the last couples of days: Finland. Here the citizens elected yesterday a new countrywide parliament. Out of this 200-seat-assembly a new government will be elected next week. A government, which will have an important voice and vote in the next Intergovernmental conference of the EU on the Constitution. Similar to Bush, who yesterday underlined "the importance of the UN for world peace", the Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen stated on Sunday the "need for a broad citizens debate on the European constitution". But as little Bush have done for the empowerment of the UN, Lipponen seems willing to give his citizens a say on the future of Europe.

In the campaign up to yesterday’s vote Lipponen never addressed the big European challenges coming up, nor did his main opponent of the Centre party, Anneli Jääteenmäki (her party became the biggest on Sunday) indicate anything about her preferences or goals in European politics. Both Lipponen and Jääteenmäki underlined instead that the elections were about "choosing the leader" and giving them an open mandate to do what she or her is the "morally right thing" - as Tony Blair would express it.

It is not enough to just elect leaders Both Bush and Lipponen shows us: it is not enough to elect leaders. And it is not enough to have an international "community", which is based on international governmental cooperation. What we have to work for is to establish democratic structures on a trans-national level too. Developing and agreeing (by referendums in all member states) on a European constitution is a necessary but not sufficient step. We need further a truly reformed UN in which small and big states have an equal say and which also the peoples of our world are represented by a directly elected assembly.

Days or just hours before another "Bush War" all this goals seems to be light years away. However, it could be that when a few try to force the many to follow their will, the many will not accept this longer - and changes are coming faster than we may believe today. In order to be ready for such windows of opportunities in trans-national politics we have to be ready to go beyond the surface of politics offered to us by "our leaders", political parties and much of the media. What politicians like Bush, Blair or even Lipponen are offering and delivering is by far not enough, not seldom even counter productive - it is now time to become "producers" of politics ourselves!

Join the debate

BRUNO KAUFMANN - is a peace- and conflict researcher, radio journalist and president of the Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe in Amsterdam. Website: www.iri-europe.org.

Website Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe

Written by Bruno Kaufmann Edited by Honor Mahony

dear_raed.blogspot.com

with new BILINGUAL flavour ie. sorry about those wierd characters, but you really should have installed that Arabic OS if you have seen Raed today please tell him Salam Pax is still looking for him.

www.back-to-iraq.com The Pitch Hi there! Thanks for stopping in. I'm Christopher Allbritton, former AP and New York Daily News reporter. This summer I went stumbling around Iraqi Kurdistan, the northern part of Iraq outside Saddam's direct control, looking for stories. (Some might call it "looking for trouble.") Well, now I want to go back in time for the war. So I'm asking your help in supporting independent journalism! Send me back to Iraq to report on what's happening.

worldnetdaily.com Posted: March 15, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Art Moore © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Could the U.N. use military force to prevent the United States and Britain from waging war on Iraq without a Security Council mandate?

Some anti-war groups are urging the world body to invoke a little-known convention that allows the General Assembly to step in when the Security Council is at an impasse in the face of a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression."

The willingness by the U.S. and Britain to go to war with Iraq without Security Council authorization is the kind of threat the U.N. had in mind when it passed Resolution 377 in 1950, said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group in New York City.

In a position paper, Ratner wrote that by invoking the resolution, called "Uniting for Peace," the "General Assembly can meet within 24 hours to consider such a matter, and can recommend collective measures to U.N. members including the use of armed forces to 'maintain or restore international peace and security.'"

The U.N. taking military action against the U.S.?

"It would be very difficult to say what that means," said Ratner in an interview with WorldNetDaily, emphasizing that he did not believe the situation would evolve to that "extreme."

"I don't consider that within the framework I'm talking about," he said.

Shonna Carter, a publicist for Ratner's group, said she believed it would be legitimate for the U.N. to use military force to stop "U.S. aggression."

"But I doubt it would happen," she said. "I don't think that as part of Uniting for Peace they would include military action, but that would have to be something those countries agreed on. …"

Steve Sawyer, spokesman for Greenpeace in New Zealand – which has joined Ratner's group in the campaign – told WND he was not aware of the U.N. being able to use force under any circumstances.

Ratner explained that Resolution 377 would enable the General Assembly to declare that the U.S. cannot take military action against Iraq without the explicit authority of the Security Council. The assembly also could mandate that the inspection regime be allowed to "complete its work."

"It seems unlikely that the United States and Britain would ignore such a measure," Ratner said in his paper. "A vote by the majority of countries in the world, particularly if it were almost unanimous, would make the unilateral rush to war more difficult."

Uniting for Peace can be invoked either by seven members of the Security Council or by a majority of the members of the General Assembly, he said.

'Ways to make U.N. more important'

Ratner, who also teaches at the Columbia University Law School, told WND that the idea of invoking the resolution "came up when I started thinking about the fact that we could get into a situation where the U.S. may go to war without a Security Council resolution or with a veto."

He had two of his students at the law school research the resolution and now has sent out the word to every U.N. mission in New York.

In addition, about 12 missions a day are being visited by campaigners, he said, and the response has been generally very positive.

He expects there to be support from the 116 countries in the non-aligned movement, who are "already saying inspectors should be given more time."

Greenpeace's involvement has greatly expanded the campaign's reach, he said, since "we're just a small human-rights litigation organization."

"I've done a lot of work with international law and with the U.N.," he said, "and we're always interested in figuring out ways to make the U.N. more important."

Sedition?

A circular e-mail letter promoting the campaign said in the first paragraph that "if Iraq is invaded, it would empower the General Assembly to restore peace, including an authorization to use military action to accomplish this, if necessary."

The letter includes Ratner's name and e-mail address as a contact, but he says he did not send out that particular version, which included the line about the U.N. using military action.

A political science professor at the University of Michigan who forwarded the letter to colleagues, added a note above the text, obtained by WND, that said: "Below you will find an excellent and urgently needed proposal for stopping the war before it starts from the Center for Constitutional Rights. …"

"Please make this major peace action a high priority and forward this message to others," said Susan Wright, who indicated she is with the university's Institute for Research on Women and Gender.

Is Wright essentially urging foreign countries to be willing to take military action against her own country?

"I wouldn't say it's necessarily sedition," said Ratner. "Advocacy is one thing, having the means to carry it out is another. It's not something I would ever recommend."

Art Moore is a news editor with WorldNetDaily.com.