Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: Mike Ryan

  • Beastie Boys: In A World Gone Mad

    In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
    So much violence hate and spite
    Murder going on all day and night
    Due time we fight the non-violent fight

    Mirrors, smokescreens and lies
    It’s not the politicians but their actions I despise
    You and Saddam should kick it like back in the day
    With the cocaine and Courvoisier
    But you build more bombs as you get more bold
    As your mid-life crisis war unfolds
    All you want to do is take control
    Now put that axis of evil bullshit on hold
    Citizen rule number 2080
    Politicians are shady
    So people watch your back ’cause I think they smoke crack
    I don’t doubt it look at how they act

    In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
    So much violence hate and spite
    Murder going on all day and night
    Due time we fight the non-violent fight

    First the ‘War On Terror’ now war on Iraq
    We’re reaching a point where we can’t turn back
    Let’s lose the guns and let’s lose the bombs
    And stop the corporate contributions that they’re built upon
    Well I’ll be sleeping on your speeches ‘til I start to snore
    ‘Cause I won’t carry guns for an oil war
    As-Salamu alaikum, wa alaikum assalam
    Peace to the Middle East peace to Islam
    Now don’t get us wrong ‘cause we love America
    But that’s no reason to get hysterica
    They’re layin’ on the syrup thick
    We ain’t waffles we ain’t havin’ it

    In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
    So much violence hate and spite
    Murder going on all day and night
    Due time we fight the non-violent fight

    Now how many people must get killed?
    For oil families pockets to get filled?
    How many oil families get killed?
    Not a damn one so what’s the deal?

    It’s time to lead the way and de-escalate
    Lose the weapons of mass destruction and the hate
    Say ooh ah what’s the White House doin’?
    Oh no! Say, what in tarnation have they got brewing??!!!!???!!
    Well I’m not pro Bush and I’m not pro Saddam
    We need these fools to remain calm
    George Bush you’re looking like Zoolander
    Trying to play tough for the camera
    What am I on crazy pills? We’ve got to stop it
    Get your hand out my grandma’s pocket
    We need health care more than going to war
    You think it’s democracy they’re fighting for?

    In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
    So much violence hate and spite
    Murder going on all day and night
    Due time we fight the non-violent fight

  • A Modest Proposal: Giving Bush and Blair a Deadline

    There comes a time when the prevarications and faulty logic of official policy become so extreme that only satire can shed light on the truth. We have reached such a point with respect to the warmongering of the United States and Britain in relation to Iraq’s alleged possession of a threatening stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

    George Bush and Tony Blair are trying to impose a deadline of March 17th, just days away, for Saddam Hussein to prove that he does not have weapons of mass destruction. If Bush and Blair succeed in getting the support of the UN Security Council for this, they are prepared to proceed to war. From their pronouncements, they seem determined to proceed to war even without Security Council approval.

    But how can Hussein prove that he doesn’t have something? What would the proof be that something doesn’t exist? If he were asked to prove that he has something, he could simply provide it and that would be the proof. To prove that he doesn’t have something, however, is far more problematic. You can’t just say, “Here is what I don’t have.”

    Perhaps it is reasonable within the context of the continuing UN inspections to seek a fuller accounting of the stocks of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq claims to have destroyed in the early 1990s. Iraq may be in a position to give a more complete accounting or an explanation of whatever gaps exist in its record-keeping. Once this has been done, then to continue pressing Iraq to prove a negative is a deliberate ploy to make the inspection alternative to war fail.

    So what is Hussein to do? He has let the UN inspectors into his country. He has opened his palaces to the inspectors. He has been destroying missiles that are just marginally over the permitted range. He has allowed U-2 overflights of Iraq. He has permitted Iraqi scientists to be interrogated by inspectors in circumstances that protect the confidentiality of the communications. Each time that Iraq does more to cooperate with the inspectors, it is dismissed by Bush and Blair as insufficient, as some sort of insidious trick.

    It seems an utter impossibility under these circumstances that Hussein could prove his case to the satisfaction of Bush and Blair in a few days time, or ever, for that matter. It seems increasingly clear that the last thing that Bush and Blair seek is for Hussein to prove his case convincingly.

    Given the mindset of Bush and Blair and the impossible task they have given to Hussein to prove a negative, it seems apparent that they are simply setting a deadline to get on with the war they seek for a series of undisclosed reasons. If the Security Council supports such a deadline, they will be giving the UN stamp of approval to this criminal form of lunacy. Setting a deadline to go to war when the weapons inspections are succeeding, as Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei agree they are, amounts to setting a timebomb under the United Nations itself.

    We would like to offer our own modest proposal. Why not set a deadline for Bush and Blair to demonstrate conclusively that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction? Surely if such weaponry exists and could be found by means of war, it can be demonstrated to exist by peaceful means. Surely, the vast intelligence efforts devoted to Iraq over the course of the past decade, bolstered by defectors and by interviews with Iraqi scientists and engineers, would have established the existence of such weaponry if it exists.

    This proposal does not contain the logical fallacy of demanding the proof of a negative. If the US and Britain cannot prove that Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction, then the United Nations should immediately remove its sanctions on Iraq, sanctions that have caused terrible suffering and death to the Iraqi people for more than ten years. The US and Britain should also drop their intrusions of Iraqi sovereignty that have included almost daily bombings. Such a course would make far more sense than accepting the Bush/Blair proposal. To be fair we propose to give Washington and London until the end of March to prove this positive!

    The burden of proof should be on those who propose the use of force, not on those who oppose it. Most members of the Security Council understand this. If Bush and Blair do not meet this burden of proof within a reasonable time period, their calls and planning for war should cease.

    The UN inspections in Iraq can and should continue, and in fact they should be used as a model for inspecting all countries that have or are suspected of having weapons of mass destruction, including the five permanent members of the Security Council. This would be an important step in moving the world toward transparency and recognition that weapons of mass destruction are not suitable instruments in the hands of the leaders of any country, including those presided over by Bush and Blair. If we want to remove the menace of weapons of mass destruction, we need to establish a reliable regime of prohibition that applies to all countries and does not single out a few non-western states.
    * Richard Falk is chairman and David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. They are co-editors of The Iraq Crisis and International Law.

  • Text of Resignation Letter from the Second U.S. Diplomat to Resign in Protest

    John H. Brown, a Princeton PhD, joined the Foreign Service in 1981 and has served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and, most recently, Moscow. A senior member of the Foreign Service since 1997, he has focused his diplomatic work on press and cultural affairs. Under a State Department program, he has, up to now, been an Associate at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, where he was assigned in August 2001. He resigned in protest of the Bush administration’s war against Iraq. The text of his resignation letter is as follows:

    To: Secretary of State Colin Powell

    March 10, 2003

    Dear Mr. Secretary:

    I am joining my colleague John Brady Kiesling in submitting my resignation from the Foreign Service (effective immediately) because I cannot in good conscience support President Bush’s war plans against Iraq.

    The president has failed:

    –To explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at this time;

    –To lay out the full ramifications of this war, including the extent of innocent civilian casualties;

    –To specify the economic costs of the war for ordinary Americans;

    –To clarify how the war would help rid the world of terror;

    –To take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration.

    Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president’s disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century.

    I joined the Foreign Service because I love our country. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it.

    Sincerely,

    John H. Brown
    Foreign Service Officer

  • 10 Reasons Environmentalists Oppose an Attack on Iraq

    Environmentalists Against the War

    As organizations and individuals working for the environment and environmental justice, we have watched with increasing concern as the US government moves closer to an all-out attack on Iraq. We raise our voices in opposition to this war and invite others to join us in support of peace. We oppose an attack on Iraq for the following reasons:

    1. An attack on Iraq could kill nearly 500,000 people. Most of the people killed would be innocent civilians.

    In November 2002, Medact, the British health professional organization, warned that as many as 260,000 Iraqis could die immediately from a US attack, while another 200,000 deaths would result from famine and disease. The UN fears that an attack would create a flood of 900,000 refugees.

    2. War destroys human settlements and native habitats. War destroys wildlife and contaminates the land, air and water. The damage can last for generations.

    The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) has documented lasting damage from the 1991 Gulf War. Oil, chemical and radiological pollution still contaminates the region. More than 60 million gallons of crude oil spilled from pipes. Some 1,500 miles of coast were tarnished with oil and cancer-causing chemicals. The deserts were scarred with 246 “lakes” of congealed oil. More than 700 oil wells burned for nine months, producing toxic clouds that blocked the sun and circled the Earth.

    In the aftermath of the Gulf War, more than a dozen countries submitted environmental claims to the United Nations totaling $48 billion.

    3. US clusterbombs, thermobaric explosions, electromagnetic bursts and weapons made with depleted uranium are indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction.

    In the 1991 Gulf War, US forces reportedly fired nearly a million rounds of depleted uranium (DU) bullets and shells, leaving 300 tons of DU scattered across Kuwait and southern Iraq. According to the Army Environmental Policy Institute, ingesting DU “has the potential to generate significant medical consequences.” The World Health Organization (WHO) warns “children could receive greater exposure to DU when playing in or near DU impact sites. Typical hand-to-mouth activity could lead to high DU ingestion from contaminated soil.” In the aftermath of the profound chemical and radiological contamination released during the 1991 war, cancer and leukemia rates in southern Iraq have increased six-fold.

    4. Bombs pollute, poisoning the land with unexploded shells and toxic chemicals. Bombs can’t locate or neatly destroy hidden chemical or biological weapons (CBW), but they can cause the uncontrolled spread of deadly CBW agents.

    According to Saudi Foreign Policy Advisor Adel al-Jubeir, the 1991 US attack on Iraq destroyed “not a single chemical or biological weapon.” That may have been fortunate. On March 10, 1991, after the Gulf War had ended, US troops destroyed several weapons bunkers at Khamisiyah in southern Iraq. Five years later, the Pentagon admitted that the explosion released a cloud of CBW agents, exposing 100,000 US soldiers to mustard gas and sarin nerve gas.

    5. Fighting a war for oil is ultimately self-defeating.

    Our fossil-fuel-based economy pollutes our air, fouls our lungs and contributes to global climate change. The world needs to burn less oil, not more. Earth’s remaining recoverable oil reserves are expected to peak soon and decline well before the end of the century. Waging wars to control an energy source that is finite will never achieve long-term national security. Oil-based economies must be replaced by technologies powered by clean, sustainable, renewable fuels.

    6. Pre-emptive attacks are acts of aggression.

    A “pre-emptive attack” would constitute an attack on the rule of international law, the dream of world peace embodied in the United Nations Charter, and the promise of environmental security enshrined in a host of global treaties. Attacking a city of 5 million people with hundreds of cruise missiles would constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity.

    7. Aggression invites retaliation.

    The CIA has concluded that Saddam Hussein would only be provoked to use chemical or biological weapons in self-defense – if the US launched an invasion bent on replacing him. Attacking Iraq would increase the probability of chemical, biological, and radiological attacks directed against US cities.

    8. Increased military spending (to control access to the fuel that powers our oil-based economy) drains funds from critical social, educational, medical and environmental needs.

    The war (and subsequent occupation of Iraq) is projected to cost as much as $200 billion. Meanwhile the economy teeters and unemployment soars while the administration cuts funding for environmental stewardship and basic human needs.

    9. Militarization and the war on terrorism are eroding America’s freedoms at home.

    The US PATRIOT Act has been used to persecute immigrants and fuels an atmosphere of racism and fear. The terrorist threat has been used to justify removal of public information databases that provided communities with critical data on industrial hazards. There has been a clampdown on the Freedom of Information Act, a valuable tool that had been used to hold polluting corporations accountable for their actions. The PATRIOT Act criminalizes legal forms of political opposition to controversial government policies, thereby threatening legitimate political and environmental activism.

    10. The US has threatened to strike Iraq with nuclear weapons – the ultimate weapons of mass destruction.

    In December 2002, a US strategy report claimed that the US “reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including through resort to all out options – to the use of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) against the US, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” Bush administration officials stated that the threat of a nuclear first-strike did not constitute a policy change.

    Bush’s 2002 Nuclear Posture Review called for development of new nuclear weapons including earth-penetrating “bunker busters” and five-kiloton “mini-nukes” (four “mini-nukes” would contain the explosive force of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima).

    If nuclear weapons are used in Iraq, Medact fears that 3.9 million people would die. The radioactive fallout would eventually circle the planet, dooming even more people to an early death.

    Environmentalists Against the War – (650) 223-3306,pdrekmeier@earthlink.net.

    Endorsers (As of February 20, 2003)

    Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse
    Acterra
    Arc Ecology
    Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters
    Bay Area Earth Day
    Bay Area Nuclear (BAN) Waste Coalition
    Bay Area Wilderness Training
    Bluewater Network
    Boreal Footprint Project
    Butte Environmental Council
    California Communities Against Toxics
    California League of Conservation Voters
    Californians for Radioactive Safeguards
    CorpWatch
    Destination Conservation
    Earth First!, Bay Area
    Earth House
    Earth Island Institute
    The Ecology Center
    Environment & Health Committee Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility Environmental Law Foundation Foundation for Global Community Global Exchange Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice Greenpeace INOCHI/Plutonium Free Future International Rivers Network Mid-Peninsula Action for Tomorrow People for Livable and Affordable Neighborhoods People Organizing to Demand Environmental & Economic Rights Project Underground Rainforest Action Network Redwood Action Team at Stanford Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment Ruckus Society Sacramento Area Earth Day Network Sacred Land Film Project Safe Food and Fertilizer San Bruno Mountain Watch San Francisco Green Party SAVE International Save Open Space Gilroy Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Southern Rockies Watershed Network Stanford Open Space Alliance Sustainable Mill Valley Tri-Valley CAREs West County Toxics Coalition Working Assets World Sustainability Hearing Project WorldWise

  • Iraq and the Failures of Democracy

    There is no decision in foreign policy more serious than recourse to war. As the Bush administration prods the country toward an unpopular and illegal war with Iraq, it is a matter of national urgency to question whether our constitutional system of government is providing adequate protection to the American people against the scourge of war. Given the turbulence of the current world scene and considering America’s military primacy on the global stage, what the United States does affects the well-being, and possibly the survival, of others throughout the world. So we must question whether our system of representative democracy is currently working in relation to this momentous question of war or peace.

    Without doubt the events of September 11 were a test of the viability of our institutions under a form of stress never before experienced, the menace of a mega-terrorist enemy lurking in the concealed recesses of dozens of countries, including possibly our own. To respond effectively without losing our democratic identity in the process required wise and sensitive leadership. It required as well a display of political and moral imagination to devise a strategy capable of dealing effectively with mega-terrorism while remaining ethical and in keeping with our values as a nation. At this point, on the brink of a war against Iraq, a country that has not been persuasively linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, it is impossible to conclude that our government is meeting this unprecedented challenge. Indeed, the Bush administration appears likely to intensify the danger while further widening the orbit of death and destruction.

    The American system of constitutional government depends on a system of checks and balances. Such checks and balances among the three main branches of government is a fundamental principle, and never more so than in relation to war and peace. At the very least, Congress has the responsibility of restraining a rush to war by engaging in serious public debate. To date Congress has only held low profile hearings some months back. No opponents of the approach taken by the Bush administration were invited to participate in the hearings, which almost exclusively analyzed the costs and benefits of the war option as applied to Iraq. There was no consideration of alternatives to war, no reflections on the dubious legality of the preemptive war doctrine, no discussion of the absence of urgency and necessity that undermined the argument that there was no time to waste in achieving “disarmament” and “regime change” in Iraq.

    Congress has so far failed in its constitutional responsibilities. In passing the USA Patriot Act shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress seriously eroded traditional American guarantees of freedom and privacy found in the Bill of Rights. The Act allows the government to conduct secret searches, provides for FBI access to extensive personal and financial records of individuals without court order or even probable cause of a crime, and creates a new, broad definition of “domestic terrorism” that could subject individuals who engage in public protest to wiretapping and enhanced penalties.

    The open-ended resolution of Congress authorizing the president to resort to force only accentuates its failure to uphold these responsibilities. It would seem that the patriotic mood that followed the terrorist attacks, along with shortsighted anxieties about challenging a popular president, has dulled the critical faculties of Congress as a whole despite the willingness of a small number of senators and congressmen to raise their voices in opposition. As a republic, the US Government cannot function properly if Congress fails to exercise its constitutional responsibilities in relation to the ultimate issues of war and peace, and simply gives spineless deference to the president.

    Closely connected with this institutional breakdown, is the lamentable behavior of the Democratic Party, particularly its leadership. They have failed in the role of an opposition party to raise issues of principle, especially when so much is at stake. The passivity of the Democratic Party in these circumstances can only be explained by its ill-considered opportunism with regard to domestic politics, including an inappropriate pretension of patriotism. Given the importance of the party system, our governing procedures cannot protect the citizenry against unacceptable policies if the opposition party becomes mute and hides in the face of anticipated controversy.

    These issues have been compounded by a compliant mainstream media, especially the corporate-owned news networks. The media has largely viewed its role in terms of promoting patriotic obedience to the government and mobilizing the country for war against Iraq rather than illuminating the debate about whether such a war is justified and necessary. The media has focused its attention on when the war will begin, how it will be fought, and what kind of occupation policy and exit strategy will be attempted. It has refrained from considering the question of why the US should or should not engage in war or from examining the many serious possible consequences to the Middle East and to the US itself of engaging in this war.

    There are numerous qualified critics among the American citizenry, as well as overseas, and yet their voices are virtually never heard in the mainstream media. The media tends to orient its analysis around compliant “military analysts” and conservative think tank policy wonks. Even when prominent military figures, such as General Norman Schwartzkopf or General Anthony Zinni, express doubts about the rush to war, their objections are given virtually no attention. This spectacle of a self-indoctrinated and self-censored media weakens our democratic fabric, depriving the citizenry of information and perspectives that are needed to reach intelligent conclusions as to support or opposition.

    Most important of all, the Bush administration seems to be moving toward a non-defensive war against Iraq without providing a coherent account to the American public. It has presented evidence to the UN Security Council suggesting that Iraq retains unreported stocks of biological and chemical weaponry, but has provided no convincing proof of this and certainly no rationale on this basis for war. The American people need to realize that there are at least twenty countries with greater capabilities than Iraq with respect to such weaponry. A number of these countries are far more likely to be a conduit for such weaponry to pass into the hands of al Qaeda or other terrorist operatives, which is the greatest danger.

    It is also important for the American people to understand that in the course of an American attack on Iraq, its leadership would only then have an incentive, in their helplessness, to turn such weaponry as they possess over to al Qaeda or to use it against American troops. Without such an incentive, Iraq is likely to remain the most deterred country on the planet, fully aware that any provocative step involving deployment or threats of weapons of mass destruction would bring about the instant annihilation of the Baghdad regime and Iraq as an independent country.

    Under these circumstances, we must wonder why the Bush administration, with pro forma Congressional support, is plunging ahead with a war that seems so contrary to reason. There are two lines of explanation, both raising disturbing questions about the legitimacy of governance under the leadership of the Bush administration. The first explanation is that the shock impact of September 11 has upset the rationality of the policy process to such an extent that an unwarranted war is being undertaken. Part of this explanation is the frustration experienced by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the Afghanistan War. Not knowing what to do next has led the administration irrationally to treat Saddam Hussein as if he were Osama Bin Laden and to treat Iraq as if it were al Qaeda. Such irrationality overlooks the radical difference between responding to a terrorist network that cannot be deterred and dealing with a hostile and unpalatable minor state. War is neither needed nor acceptable in the latter case.

    The second line of explanation, the more likely in our judgment, is that the American people and the other governments of the world are not being told the main reasons behind the US war policy. From this perspective, the alleged preoccupation with Iraqi weaponry of mass destruction is largely diversionary, as is the emphasis on Saddam’s brutality. The real reasons for the war are oil and regional strategic control, a military beachhead in relation to the volatile Middle East. Such justifications for war make strategic sense if, and only if, America is pursuing global dominance to ensure that its current economic and military preeminence is sustained into the future. But it is undoubtedly impolitic for the Bush administration to reveal such motives for war. The American people are overwhelmingly unwilling to spill blood for oil or empire. And most of the international community would certainly oppose the war if Washington’s strategic goals were made explicit.

    The suspicion that the underlying reasons for war are not being disclosed is not based on adherence to a conspiracy theory of government. If we examine closely the worldview expressed years before September 11 by the Pentagon hawks and Vice President Cheney, this understanding of American goals in the world becomes more transparent. What September 11 did was to provide an anti-terrorist banner under which these grandiose schemes could be realized without public acknowledgement. Again, this is not a paranoid fantasy. President Bush explicitly endorsed this vision of America’s world role in his West Point commencement address last June, and more subtly, in the major document issued by the White House in September 2002 under the title The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.

    We are left then with two related problems. The first is that of concealment from the American people, and the second is the substantive issue of whether the United States should initiate a war to promote this grand design of American power and empire. It seems reasonable to assume that the motives for concealment are connected with the administration’s assessment of the political unacceptability of their undisclosed motives for war. This double image of our democratic crisis is particularly troublesome in the face of the breakdown of our constitutional reliance on checks and balances.

    But all is not lost. There are many indications that opposition to the war is growing at the grassroots level in America, and has been robust all along among the peoples of the world. In the United States, polling information shows that more than 70 percent of the people do not support a unilateral preemptive war led by the United States. More than 70 city councils across the country have registered their opposition to a war against Iraq, and the number continues to grow. Recently over forty American Nobel Laureates went on record opposing a US preventive war against Iraq. More and more Americans are taking to the streets in opposition to the Bush administration’s plans for aggressive warfare. These numbers can be expected to grow and the voices of protesters become angrier as the administration moves ever closer to war.

    It seems doubtful that this resistance at the level of the citizenry can operate as a check in the short run on White House zeal, but perhaps it can both strengthen the resolve of Congress and the Democratic Party, and convey the wider message that we need to recover trust in government if our constitutional system is to uphold our security and our values as a democratic republic. Already in the US Senate, Senators Edward Kennedy and Robert Byrd have introduced a resolution (S. Res. 32) calling on the president to provide full support to the UN weapons inspectors to facilitate their ongoing disarmament work and obtain a new resolution of approval by Congress before using military force against Iraq without the broad support of the international community.

    The stakes are extremely high. It is not only the prospect of war against Iraq, but it is the whole relationship of the United States to the world. Continuing down the path along which the Bush administration is leading is likely to produce a climate of perpetual fear and war. It is also likely to undermine further our security and our freedoms at home, even moving us in the direction of a police state. Already, American consulates around the world are warning Americans of the heightened dangers that they are likely to face in reaction to the Iraq War. At home, the color-coded alert system created by the Department of Homeland Security seems designed to keep Americans in a state of fear without providing them with any positive steps they can take to increase their security. With each passing week the government moves ahead with its claims to exercise sweeping powers that erode our civil liberties while arousing our fears that terrorists are poised to strike at the American heartland. We do not need to have such a future, but it will be difficult to avoid unless the American people exercise their democratic prerogatives and rise in defense of their civil liberties, as well as in support of peace, international law and constitutional government.
    *Richard Falk, a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, is chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. David Krieger is a founder and president of the Foundation. They are the co-editors of a recent Foundation Briefing Booklet, The Iraq Crisis and International Law.

  • Letter to The Honorable Elton Gallegly

    Letter to The Honorable Elton Gallegly
    by Leah Wells*, February 6, 2003

    Dear Congressman Gallegly,

    This letter is in regards to my concern for the American people and the Iraqi people as the leaders of our country position for a massive invasion.

    Under Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship, the people of Iraq have suffered greatly. It is true that, using biological and chemical agents purchased from the United States and other Western governments, he oversaw the massacre of Kurdish people in the North of Iraq and of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. He has been uncooperative in the past with the UN weapons inspectors and is guilty of invading Kuwait.

    Dealing with international tyrants is possibly one of the most crucial challenges of our time. Yet a military option does not have to be the only answer. Dictatorships despise a thriving civil society. If it is Saddam’s removal that we seek, we should strengthen the civic participation of the Iraqi people and allow them to create a government of their choosing, not ours. The Iraqi people have been all but left out of the equation in the discussions surrounding dealing with Saddam.

    Nonviolent civilian-based defense has been an option in many countries in addressing oppressive dictatorships the Philippines, Chile and in Serbia. “Nonviolence does not mean being nice to your oppressor,” said Jack DuVall and Peter Ackerman, authors of A Force More Powerful. “It means removing his base of power and forcing him out.” Slobodan Milosevic, whose case is being tried at the International Criminal Court, was brought down by a powerful nonviolent student movement partially financed by the United States and Western Europe.

    Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations purports to raise new evidence that Iraq is resisting disarmament, but his information is even questioned by U.S. intelligence sources. CIA and FBI officials told the New York Times that the Bush administration is “exaggerating” the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda to strengthen their case for war. With respect to the evidence linking the two, they said “we just don’t think it’s there.”

    Hans Blix himself, the director of the UN inspection team in Iraq, has seen no evidence of the movable biological weapons labs that Powell described and has “no persuasive indications” of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The international community has continually called on the United States to allow the UN weapons inspectors more time to complete their investigations. The Bush administration routinely cites the disarmament of South Africa as an example of success which took a full two years to complete.

    Furthermore, if we are concerned with tyrannical governments acquiring weapons of mass destruction, we should look to North Korea. Even though North Korea has admitted it has a nuclear weapons program, the United States is pursuing a course of diplomacy with them. It is understandable that other nations would want to gain weapons of mass destruction to be taken seriously by the United States and the other countries that already benefit from the political and economic leverage those weapons provide.

    The most important aspect missing from the dialogue on Iraq, however, are the lives of millions of Iraqi people, all of whom have their own faces, stories and families. The 24 million people who live in Iraq are not only concerned with the pending invasion of their country, but with the oppressive economic sanctions which have been in place since August 1990. We are potentially jeopardizing the lives of 500,000 Iraqis and risking putting 10 million Iraqis in need of immediate humanitarian aid. In a meeting with UNICEF in Baghdad last September, I asked about the potential effects of a massive invasion. The response from UNICEF was that “war is the last thing Iraqi people need.”

    Already the economic sanctions are a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, killing more people than perished in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the majority of them clearly being non-combatants. Containment is a code word for sanctions, which you note in your press release of 5 February having been ineffective.

    The cost of invading Iraq estimates suggest in excess of $1 trillion should be enough to convince Americans that this war is impractical and will burden generations to come with the debt of war, particularly in an economic downturn. Here in the state of California, Governor Gray Davis has cut $2 billion from the education budget, which means that the state will spend $303 less per student next year. Already school districts are strapped for resources and are scrambling to maintain their staff. The students of your district bear the burden of misappropriated funds; one grimly remarked, “So we’re balancing the budget.”

    As your constituent, I cannot shelve my conscience and ration my compassion to rationalize an invasion of Iraq. I care deeply for the future of the United States and for the future of my students who depend on quality public education. I am also concerned for the many veterans needing better benefits and medical care.

    Heads of state from many countries, including many allies and permanent members of the Security Council, religious leaders from many faiths and average concerned citizens continue to raise their voices in the hopes of bringing this war to a halt and allowing a peaceful resolution. On Monday, February 10, the Ventura City Council will hear from residents regarding a proposed resolution opposing an attack on Iraq.

    I trust that as our representative, you will listen to the voices of your constituents and make every effort to avert an escalated war with Iraq and lift the economic sanctions, heeding our calls for peace.

    Thank you in advance for your response to this letter.

    In Peace,
    Leah C. Wells
    Peace Education Coordinator
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    *Leah C. Wells, a Santa Paula teacher, serves as peace education coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara.

  • U.S. Diplomat’s Letter of Resignation

    The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling’s letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

    Dear Mr. Secretary:

    I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

    It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

    The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

    The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

    We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

    We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?

    I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

    Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

    I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

  • A Diary of Two Iraqi Girls

    The following diary passages were given to the Foundation by Ramzi Kysia, a member of the Iraq Peace Team (IPT) an initiative of Voices in the Wilderness. According to Kysia, the passages are from the diary of Amira, a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, and her 9-year-old sister, Layla. The girls wrote these entries during the last 2 months of 2002, and gave them to IPT to be translated and published in the US. For more information on the Iraqi Peace Team click here.
    AMIRA
    My name is Amira and I didn’t go to school because of the financial circumstances. I left school at the age of 8 years old. I was in the third grade. No one in our family completed school. Not my father, mother or brothers. I have 2 brothers, 2 sisters and my parents. Father is an old, sick man and he and my mother don’t work. I, Amira, is the only one who works.

    I wake up at 7am and go to the bathroom, wash my face with soap and water, then eat bread and tea for breakfast, and go to work. I say, “with God’s blessing,” and go to the market and buy 30 packs of chewing gum and go to work in Karrada Street, and work until 3 or 4pm. Then I go home, enter the bathroom for a bath, wash my clothes, and read with my younger sister, Layla.

    A man told me to go to school and study. I get ashamed a lot, and said, “please, Allah, remove the sanctions from the Iraqi people.” And I am in pain because I didn’t attend school. I see girls go to school and regret that I cannot, because it is a treasure, and man’s future.

    ***

    LAYLA
    My name is Layla. I am nine years old. I am a student in the third grade elementary school. I wake up at 7am, wash my face with water, then go to the market to get breakfast which is egg and bread. After breakfast, I wear the school uniform and go to school by 8am. My school is far away. It’s 15 minutes. I go to home by 12pm, then enter my home and my mother would be preparing lunch which is a potato sandwich. Then I go to sleep and wake up in the afternoon to write my homework, and stay awake until 9pm. I don’t watch TV because ours is broken and we can’t buy one. Every day I go to the neighbors to watch TV, and then stay with my sister at home. My mother says that she’ll work to buy us a TV and so my sister Amira doesn’t have to work. I will work to save money and buy a TV.

    ***

    AMIRA
    My name is Amira and on Tuesday I wake up at 7am. My mother said that she’ll go and buy breakfast, then I would wash my face with water and soap and change my clothes and wear work clothes. Then my mother came with eggs, bread and tea, and I said to myself that I would like to sit at home, but our finances would not help. Then my mother said, “take care, Amira.” I said, “don’t worry, I know,” and she said, “go, Amira, Allah be with you my dear daughter.” Then I left home at 8am and went to the market to get chewing gum to sell in the street. I made 3000 dinar [$1.50 US] and gave it to my mother.

    By 12 noon I eat a cheese sandwich, and at 3pm I went to the market to buy bread and paid 500 dinar [25 cents] for some dates, grapes and cheese. I went home and all my family was awaiting me. My younger brothers were waiting at the door. When they saw me they ran towards me and took the bag and ate. After eating we stayed until 9pm and then went to sleep. I went to bed, but my mother said, “let me heat the water for you to wash.” I bathed and went to bed by 10pm. I was very tired and sleep until 3am to open the water and help my mother until 4am, then go to sleep again.

    ***

    AMIRA
    Sometimes I don’t go to work because I am sick. It’s a nasal disease, and I have a headache. Once I went to work and a man said to me, “Why are you like that -you are a little girl. Go to school.” I was very sick. I went to the park, sat there and had a gloomy mood. I said if there were no sanctions I would have attended school.

    Sanctions has affected us like that, effected the Iraqi people. Sometimes there children, women and men sleeping in the street. They are poor and feel bad and say, “Allah, remove these sanctions.”

    I wake up at 6am, and my mother would say, “are you going to work?,” and I say, “yes.” My sister, Layla, said, “will you be back at 4pm?,” and I said, “I don’t know. God knows.” When I would leave the house, mother would look at me with a tear in her eyes and say, “until when my Amira will be like this?” And I would smile and say, “Don’t be sad, God is merciful.” Then she would say, “God be with you my daughter,” and I would leave the house.

    I am 14 years old and work in the streets. I love to go to school and sometimes I am ashamed of myself. My friends say, “Amira, where do you go?” I say, “to work.” Yasmeen, my friend, says, “why do you go to work?” I say, “Who’ll support my family?” Deep in my heart I wish I didn’t have to go to work in the street. I go home in the evening very tired. I have rice and soup for dinner, and go to bed. I send this letter to the dearest people in America, who are against the sanctions and the Zionists. I hope from Allah to give you good health and all that you hope for.

    ***

    LAYLA
    I wake up at 7 in the morning and go to the bathroom to wash my face with water and soap. Then my mother prepares breakfast which is yogurt, bread and tea. I go to school at 8am. I study at school then I go home. My mother prepares lunch, so I would eat and change my clothes and go to the bath. Then I sleep in the afternoon. Then I write my homework with my mother’s help.

    I don’t go out with my friends because I have no money. I said to my mother if we have some money? And mother said we have just 10,000 dinars [$5 US], and I want you to go to the market and buy tomatoes, potatoes, and bread so I can prepare food for you because Amira is going to come tired from work. Amira comes from work and goes to the bathroom and came out of the bathroom. We ate dinner. I said why don’t we save money so we can buy a TV?, and Amira said “Allah is a great giver.” Then we went to bed at 9pm.

    ***

    AMIRA
    Once upon a time I was at work around 3pm on Sunday. I was playing with my friend Selma. I told Selma that we should go home, but she said that we’ll go at 6pm. A boy named Mahmoud came from a distance holding a big, iron bar in his hand. Mahmoud threw the iron bar in the street, but it hit my food and I had a big wound.

    My foot started bleeding a lot. I went to the hospital in a taxi while my foot is bleeding. We had only 2000 dinar [$1 US] on us, and went to a nurse who said that she would clean the wound and took 1500 dinar, and I had only 2000. So I said, “how much do you want after dressing my wound?” Then I went home and my mother was sad to see what happened to my foot.

    Day after day I went to the hospital and they would clean it and dress it, and I would pray to Allah to heal my foot. After 9 days an old man came and said, “what’s wrong with your foot?,” and I told him the story. The man said, “would you go to a doctor?” I said that I have no money. He said, “come with me to the hospital.” We went to the hospital and they sew my foot with stitches. Then the doctor prescribed me medicines. After all of this the man paid 15,000 dinar [$7.50 US]. After paying 15,000 at the hospital for the stitching and medicine, the man said to me go and stay at home and I’ll pay you the money. Stay for 7 days. I said, “you can’t do that,” and the man said, “no problem.” I will give you $20 US so you can stay at home. I went home and stayed for 7 days taking medicine. Then my wound healed and I thanked Allah and said to the man, “bless you and thank Allah for my good condition.”

    ***

    AMIRA
    Oh God, remove the sanctions on the Iraqi people and Mohammad’s nation.
    God protect our people.

    When I go to work, I won’t sit, but keep running and walking, and stopping a little bit and then get back to work. All of this to get money to buy food for my family. All of this because of the sanctions. This life has destroyed my life and my family’s life. I work so my family will have food. I pay rent for the house which is 30,000 dinar [$15 US] a month. I didn’t study because of the bad circumstances for 5 years now. I left school and I regret that. I see the children study and I feel very sad.

    Today, I wake up at 6am and go to the bathroom. I wash my face with water and soap. My mother makes my breakfast wish is tea, bread and yogurt. I get full, thank God. I am change to my work clothes. Before going to work my mother would say, “take care, Amira,” and I would say, “yes, don’t worry.”

    I go to work, go to the market and buy chewing gums to sell in the street, and work until 11am, then buy an egg sandwich and tea, then go back to work. A man said to me, “why don’t you go to school?” I said, “I don’t go to school.” The man said, “school is best, daughter.” I said, “our circumstances is not helping.”

    The man said, “how many are you at home?” I said, “Six, and no one works but me.” The man said, “are they old?” And I said, “No, they are young. One is 2 years old, one is 11 years old, one is 9 years old, I am 14 years old, and my parents.” The man said, “God is merciful, hopefully your circumstances will change.”

    I got really sad, then it was 1pm in the afternoon and I had a fight with a boy who hit me on the mouth and I started bleeding. He ran away and I started to cry. A man came from the restaurant and gave me a bottle of water and a tissue and 100 dinars [5 cents]. I thanked the man then I went home.

    My little brothers was waiting for me at the door. They came running happily towards me and I entered the home, and my mother was sad. I said, “why are you sad, mother?” My mother said, “I am sad because you have to work to support us and not go to school like the other children.” I said, “it’s okay, mother,” and laughed. Sadness is in the heart, not the eyes.

    ***

    AMIRA
    In the middle of winder it’s very cold. I go to work with other children and we all wonder until how log we are going to be that way. My father can’t work, and I have to get the bread and food for the family, and all this is due to the sanctions.

    I got very sick in mid-winter. My nose started hurting me and I didn’t go to the doctor, so now I have nasal problems. Sometimes I would wake up with a painful headache, and I have no money to go to the hospital to do a nasal operation. They want 100,000 dinar [$50 US] and I have no money. Everyday I pray to God to heal me. Then I sit a little bit to stop the dizziness, and hurry to buy medicine which doesn’t help me. Some people say, “why don’t you do the operation and get rid of it?” And I would say, “I have no money.” When I have money I buy medicine from the pharmacy or buy clothes for my brothers and food for the house. I buy cakes and fruits for the family when I have money, and I would say, “the money goes and comes.” From today I decided to save money for the operation to be good.

    If there were no sanctions, life would not be expensive. Life would be beautiful. Sanctions has effected all of us, and Palestine is in the hand of Zionist criminals. God willing, sanctions will go from Iraq and Palestine, and Palestine will be liberated from the criminals. And I, Amira, would go back to school and won’t have to work, and won’t get hurt when seeing the other girls at school.

    ***

    AMIRA
    I sat at home on Friday. I woke up at 9am, then went to the bath and washed my face with soap and water, and ate bread, tea and eggs for breakfast. Then I washed the dishes and changed my clothes to help my mother with the house work. Then I cleaned the house and went to the market to buy meat, tomatoes, onions and bread. I worked with my mother until 12pm. Mother made us lunch and we ate it. Mother said to me and my sister, Layla, that we’ll go to our aunt’s house. Auntie was happy to see us, and brought us tea and cake, and I had 2000 dinars [$1 US] and gave them to my aunt who refused to take them, but I insisted and said, “if you don’t take it I won’t see you again.” My aunt is in need for me, and I have her all that I had. She would prepare food for her children, and I am happy for that.

    ***

    AMIRA
    I went to work and saw a 13 year old girl go to school with my friend, and I became sad when I saw her. I went to work, bought chewing gums to sell, and went to work. When I see a girl my age and my sister’s age happy with clothes and I would give her good words.

    A man asked me, “why don’t you go to school? Why stay in the street? You are pretty, why are you in the streets?” I said, “our circumstances doesn’t allow me to go to school. My father is sick and mother works at home, and I have a little sister and two younger brothers. No one works but me.” The man became sad and said, “may God make it better for you.”

    All of what the man said to me made me sad, and I was going to cry, but was careful for my tear not to drop. All of this was at 1pm, and I made 3000 dinar [$1.50 US], and this is the memorial day of the Prophet, and I want a lot of money on this day, and all I have is 3000. I went to a man friend and asked him to give me 2000 dinar and I will pay him tomorrow. He agreed and gave me 2000 dinar. I thanked him and went to the marked and bought nuts and sweets and candles and incense, and went home and saw guests in our house. It was my aunt and her kids, and all the things I bought were 3500 dinar, and I still had 1500 on me and it wasn’t enough. So I went to my friend to borrow 3000, and I would pay her tomorrow, and told her I would give her 4000 for her 3000, and she agreed.

    I went to the market and bought meat, tomatoes, bread, dates and onions, and felt better. It was 5pm, and I prepared the table, candles and incense, and kept sweets in the plates and the nuts too. It was 6pm and we were celebrating the birthdate of the Prophet. I gave a small plate of sweets and nuts to the neighbors who are poor, and to my aunt and her kids. We celebrated until 8pm, and then mother prepared dinner, and we ate and thanked God for the food, and stayed awake until 10pm and mother laid beds, but it wasn’t enough, so Layla and I slept on the carpet.

    Then at morning I went and bought bread and cheese and came back to prepare breakfast. They all wake up and saw the food ready, and my mother said, “God give you long life.” We all ate. My aunt’s husband is dead, and I have my aunt money for the taxi and we said goodbye. Then I went to work.

    God is merciful. He sent me a man who paid me 8000 dinar [$4 US]. I paid my friends the debt I owed them and thanked them. I thanked God again for his mercy, and that he gave me money to feed my aunt and her children. I went home happy because I paid my debts. And I pray God to remove the sanctions from the children of Iraq and Palestine.

    ***

    AMIRA
    I didn’t study. I didn’t go to school. I am not like other girls who go to school, go to relatives, have friends, games. I go to work, come home, and that’s it. So far life isn’t pretty.

    I get sad when people are leading a happy life and we live a bad life. I am not supposed to think of life at this age, but I can’t but think when seeing my family in a bad situation. But I pray and say, “God is merciful.” Girls my age should go to school, and parks, and play games, have friends and visit relatives. But so far I didn’t see but bad things and sadness. I smile in front of people, but I am sad inside. No one knows what’s in my heart but God.

  • Appeal to Resist War: International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility

    Appeal to the International Academic Community

    We oppose a US-led war against Iraq and support all non-violent opposition to the planned war. We appeal to scientists, engineers and academics throughout the world to work in solidarity to prevent this war in both their personal and professional capacities.

    We call for teach-ins, hearings and other meetings to take place at all universities. These should consider the consequences of the planned war on the people of Iraq; the stability of the Middle East; the Future of the United Nations and international law; international relations and the dialogue among cultures; the global economy and the environment; and the development, proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction.

    We call upon universities throughout the world to engage in all forms of peaceful protest. We call upon universities in those countries supporting the war to go on strike should a war begin and to announce their intention to do so in advance.
    *The International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) is an international non-governmental organization affiliated with the UN and UNESCO. INES works for peace, sustainability and the constructive uses of science and technology. Further Information is available at http://www.inesglobal.org.

    Please contact INES at ines.office@web.de with information on activities at your university.

  • As General Debate of 57th General Assembly Opens, Secretary-General Stresses Indispensable Necessity of Multilateralism

    United States President Bush Calls on International Community To Stand Up for Its Security, Saying Iraqi Government a ‘Grave Danger’

    Opening the general debate of the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly this morning, Secretary-General Kofi Annan strongly reaffirmed the indispensable necessity and enduring relevance of multilateralism and multilateral institutions in efforts to maintain international peace, security and freedom for all.

    “I stand before you today as a multilateralist -– by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty”, he told delegations and world leaders. Recalling the 11 September terrorist attacks on the United States, he said the sustained global response to meet that “brutal and criminal challenge” could only be successful by making use of multilateral institutions. When countries worked together in such institutions –- developing, respecting and when necessary, enforcing international law –- they also developed mutual trust and cooperation on other issues, including ensuring open markets and providing protection from acid rain, global warming or the spread of HIV/AIDS.

    The more a country made use of multilateral institutions — on matters large or small — the more others would trust and respect that country and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership. “And among multilateral institutions, this universal Organization has a special place”, he said. When States decided to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there was no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

    He said the existence of an effective international security system depended on the Security Council’s authority -– and therefore the Council must have the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seemed elusive. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council’s agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace. Highlighting several challenges facing the international community today, he noted that the leadership of Iraq continued to defy mandatory Council resolutions and urged that country to comply with its obligations. If Iraq’s defiance continued, the Council must face its responsibilities.

    George Bush, President of the United States, said the United Nations had been born of the hope of a world moving towards justice, escaping old patterns of

    conflict and fear. The Security Council had been created so that diplomatic deliberations would be more than talk, and resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties, the international community had dedicated itself to standards of dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all. Today, those standards and that security were challenged.

    Iraq had answered a decade of United Nations resolutions with a decade of defiance. “All the world now faces a test”, he said, “and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.” And as the Assembly met today, it had been almost four years since last United Nations inspectors had set foot in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s actions, as well as history, logic and the facts, could lead to but one conclusion -– the Iraqi regime was a grave and gathering danger. To assume that regime’s good faith was to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. “And that is a risk we must not take.” Saddam Hussein continued to defy those efforts and to build weapons of mass destruction — a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace.

    Were Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced? he asked. Or were they to be cast aside without consequence? Would the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or would it be irrelevant? The partnership of nations could meet the test before it by making clear what was expected of the Iraqi regime. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted –- Council resolutions would be enforced and the demands of peace and security would be met, or action would be unavoidable. The international community must stand up for its security and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States would make that stand. Representatives of United Nations Member States had the power to make that stand as well.

    Explaining that the root causes of terrorism were a sense of frustration and powerlessness to redress persistent injustice, Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan said that while terrorist attacks needed to be condemned, they should not be used to justify outlawing the struggles of a people for self-determination and liberation from colonial or foreign occupation, nor used to justify State terrorism. India had misused the rationale of war against terrorism against Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, but his country would not be coerced or frightened into compromising on its principled position. The conflict in occupied Kashmir was being waged by Kashmiris, who needed to be allowed to exercise their right to determine their own future.

    He went on to say that, unfortunately, the war against terrorism had been used as a vehicle to spread hatred against Islam and Muslims. As a first step in creating a sustained dialogue between the Islamic and Western nations, he proposed the adoption of a Declaration on Religious and Cultural Understanding, Harmony and Cooperation. His own Government was focused upon restoring the traditions of a tolerant Islam, he said, and had laid the foundations for sustainable development and democracy in three short years by empowering people through the devolution of decision-making to the grass-roots level, improving human rights, rationalizing

    (page 1b follows)

    economic policies and setting up the first Human Development Fund in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

    Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, affirmed that the terrorist attacks of 11 September last year had not weakened, but rather had strengthened the resolve of its members to actively seek security and prosperity for all.

    Iraq remained a major source of concern as well, with regard to weapons of mass destruction, he said. Unconditional and unimpeded access for the weapons inspectors was needed, as well as compliance with the obligations contained in the several Security Council resolutions on the situation in Iraq. The European Union agreed with the United States position that the Security Council urgently needed to address the matter of Iraq. It also agreed with the Secretary-General’s statement that if Iraq’s defiance continued, the Security Council would need to face its responsibilities.

    He said the greatest global challenge remained the fight to rid the world of persistent poverty. Recognizing that aid alone would not eliminate poverty, he saluted the African leaders, who had taken an impressive lead with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) initiative. Strong political will and partnership was required to translate poverty eradication policies into sustainable development. He also extended the European Union’s welcome to the new United Nations Members, Switzerland and East Timor.

    Also participating in this morning’s debate were Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa; Alejandro Toledo, President of Peru; Georgi Parvanov, President of Bulgaria; Vaira Vike-Freiberga, President of Latvia; Valdas Adamkus, President of Lithuania; Rene Harris, President of Nauru and Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe. The Minister for Foreign Relations of Brazil also spoke.

    The general debate of the fifty-seventh General Assembly will continue this afternoon at 3 p.m.

    Background

    The General Assembly began its annual general debate this morning following the presentation by the Secretary-General of his annual report.

    Statement by Secretary-General

    Secretary-General KOFI ANNAN said the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 were an extreme example of a global scourge that required a broad, sustained and global response. A broad response, because terrorism could be defeated only if all nations united against it. A sustained response, because the battle would not be won easily, or overnight. A global response, because terrorism was a widespread and complex phenomenon, with many deep roots and exacerbating factors.

    Such a response could only succeed if full use was made of multilateral institutions. “I stand before you today as a multilateralist -– by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty”, he said.

    Any government committed to the rule of law at home must also be committed to the rule of law abroad, he said. All States had a clear interest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order. On almost no item on the agenda did anyone seriously contend that each nation could fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries knew that they needed to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims.

    Only by multilateral action could it be ensured that open markets offered benefits and opportunities to all; that people in the least developed countries were offered the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty; that protections were possible from global warming, the spread of HIV/AIDS, or the odious traffic in human beings. Only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all States offered any real hope of denying terrorists their opportunities. When countries worked together in multilateral institutions –- developing, respecting, and enforcing international law, they also developed mutual trust. The more a country made use of multilateral institutions, the more others would trust and respect it. And among multilateral institutions, the universal Organization had a special place. When States decided to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there was no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

    He said the existence of an effective international security system depended on the Security Council’s authority –- and therefore the Council must have the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seemed elusive. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council’s agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace.

    He said the limited objectives of reconciling Israel’s legitimate security concerns with Palestinian humanitarian needs could not be achieved in isolation from the wider political context. The ultimate shape of a Middle East peace settlement had been defined long ago in Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, as well as in resolution 1397: land for peace; an end to terror and to occupation; two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders. An international peace conference was needed without delay to set out a roadmap of parallel steps. Meanwhile, humanitarian steps to relieve Palestinian suffering must be intensified.

    The leadership of Iraq continued to defy mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. Efforts to obtain Iraq’s compliance with the Council’s resolutions must continue, he said, appealing to all who had influence with Iraq’s leaders to impress on them the vital importance of accepting the weapons inspections. He urged Iraq to comply with its obligations. If Iraq’s defiance continued, the Council must face its responsibilities.

    The Secretary-General also pressed leaders of the international community to maintain their commitment to Afghanistan. It had been the international community’s shameful neglect of Afghanistan in the 1990s that had allowed that country to slide into chaos, providing a fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda. Afghanistan’s Government must be helped to extend its authority throughout the country, and donors must follow through on their commitments. Otherwise, the Afghan people would lose hope -– and desperation bred violence.

    In South Asia, the world had recently come closer than for many years to a direct conflict between two nuclear-weapon capable countries, he said. The situation, while a little calmer, remained perilous. The underlying causes must be addressed. If a fresh crisis erupted, the international community might have a role to play.

    In conclusion, he asked all to honour their pledge of two years ago, at the Millennium Summit, “to make the United Nations a more effective instrument” in the service of the world’s people.

    Statements in Debate

    CELSO LAFER, Minister for Foreign Relations of Brazil, said that Brazil had faith in the United Nations. The Organization was at a difficult juncture that called for measures sustained by the principles on which the United Nations was founded. Throughout the eight years of the Presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, certain fundamental requirements had been recurrent, including fostering democratic decision-making and overcoming the governance deficit in international relations. They also included designing a new financial architecture and providing effective solutions for volatility in capital flows; defending a fair and balanced multilateral trade regime; and affirming the value of human rights and development.

    Brazil could not face those challenges alone, he said. That was why President Cardoso had sought to strengthen the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) together with South American integration. The President had also promoted the development of partnerships in all continents, pursuing well-balanced negotiations with countries taking part in the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Brazil was committed to seeing the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol and the establishment of the International Criminal Court; to furthering the social development agenda and to moving forward on nuclear and conventional disarmament. The electoral process currently under way in Brazil would strengthen democracy in the country. Brazil’s commitment to the United Nations and to multilateralism would not waver.

    The tangled interests that formed a global Web of interdependence could only be managed through authority rooted in multilateral institutions and in respect for international law, he said. The commitment to negotiated settlements, under the aegis of multilateralism, must be upheld. Lasting solutions to terrorism, international drug trafficking and organized crime required careful and persistent efforts to set up partnerships and cooperative arrangements consistent with the United Nations multilateral system. Protectionism and all forms of barriers to trade, both tariff and non-tariff continued to suffocate development economies and to nullify the competitiveness of their exports. Liberalization of the agricultural sector had been nothing more than a promise repeatedly put off to an uncertain future. Globalization required reform of economic and financial institutions and should not be limited to the triumph of the market.

    The situation in the Middle East underscored how distant the world still was from the international order imagined by the founders of the United Nations Charter, he continued. Brazil supported the creation of a democratic, secure and economically viable Palestinian State as well as the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Brazil also defended the right of the State of Israel to exist within recognized borders and of its people to live in security. Those were essential prerequisites for lasting peace in the Middle East. The use of force at the international level was only admissible once all diplomatic alternatives had been exhausted. Force must only be exercised in accordance with the Charter and consistent with the determinations of the Security Council.

    Regarding Iraq, Brazil believed that it was incumbent on the Security Council to determine the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the relevant resolutions, he said. The exercise by the Security Council of its responsibilities was the way to reduce tensions and to avoid the unpredictable consequences of wider instability. In Angola, the international community must support recent positive developments that opened the way for rebuilding the country and consolidating peace. The Security Council needed reform so as to enhance its legitimacy and to lay the foundations for more solid international cooperation in building a just and stable international order. A central feature of reform should be the expansion of the number of members, both in the permanent and non-permanent categories. The United Nations was the crucial hinge in creating global governance focused on a more equitable distribution of the dividends of peace and progress.

    GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States, said meeting one year and one day after a terrorist attack that had brought grief to his country and the citizens of many others, it was time to turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives -– without illusion and without fear. While much had been accomplished during the past year in Afghanistan and beyond, much remained to be done –- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented in the Assembly Hall had joined in the fight against global terrorism, and the people of the United States were grateful.

    He said the United Nations had been born of the hope of a world moving towards justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding fathers had resolved that the peace of the world would never again be destroyed by the wickedness of any man. The Security Council had been created so that –- unlike the League of Nations -– diplomatic deliberations would be more than talk, and resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators, broken treaties and squandered lives, the international community had dedicated itself to standards of dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all. Today, those standards and that security were challenged.

    The international community’s commitment to human dignity was challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering was great, and the responsibility was clear. The United States was joining with the world to supply aid where it reached people and uplifted lives. It would also extend trade and the prosperity it brought. As a symbol of its commitment to human dignity, the United States would return to the newly reformed United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and would participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance and learning.

    He said the international community’s common security was challenged by regional conflicts -– ethnic and religious strife that was ancient but not inevitable. There could be no peace for either side in the Middle East without freedom for both sides. America stood committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserved a government that served their interests. Above all, international security was challenged by outlaw groups and regimes that accepted no law of morality and had no limit to their violent ambitions. The threat hid within many nations, including his own, he said, and the greatest fear was that terrorists would find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplied them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

    He went on to say that all those dangers, in their most aggressive and lethal forms –- the very kind of threat the United Nations was born to confront — could be found in one place and in one regime. Twelve years ago, Iraq had invaded Kuwait without provocation, and the regime’s forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Yet, that aggression had been stopped by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations. To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein had entered into a series of commitments. The terms had been clear and he had agreed to comply with all those obligations. Instead, he had proven only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -– by his deceptions and cruelties -– Saddam Hussein had made the case against himself.

    In 1991, Security Council resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities. That demand had been ignored. Through resolutions 686 and 687, the Council demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq’s regime had agreed, but subsequently had broken that promise. Further promises to comply with Council resolutions, on renouncing involvement with terrorism, and ceasing the support of terrorism, had also been broken by the Iraqi regime.

    He added that Iraq’s Government openly praised the terrorist attacks of

    11 September. Moreover, that regime had agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to comply with rigorous biological and chemical weapons inspections headed by the United Nations. It did not live up to those promises, and the inspections revealed that Iraq likely maintained stockpiles of anthrax, mustard gas and other chemical agents.

    He went on to say that today, Iraq continued to withhold important information about its nuclear weapons programme. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. He went on to say that Saddam Hussein had subverted the United Nations “oil-for-food” programme, working around the sanctions imposed in 1991 to buy missile technology and military materials. Hussein blamed the suffering of Iraq’s people on the United Nations, even as he used oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself and armed his country. As the Assembly met today, it had been almost four years since the last United Nations inspectors had set foot in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s actions, as well as history, logic and the facts, could lead to but one conclusion -– the Iraqi regime was a grave and gathering danger.

    To suggest otherwise was to hope against the evidence, President Bush continued. To assume that regime’s good faith was to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. “And that is a risk we must not take.” The international community had been more than patient, trying sanctions, the “carrot” of oil for food and the “stick” of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein continued to defy those efforts and to build weapons of mass destruction. That regime’s conduct was a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace.

    Iraq had answered a decade of United Nations resolutions with a decade of defiance. “All the world now faces a test”, he said, “and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.” Were Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced? Or were they to be cast aside without consequence? Would the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or would it be irrelevant?

    He said that as a founding Member of the United Nations, the United States wanted the Organization to be effective, respected and successful. It wanted the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced. The partnership of nations could meet the test before it by making clear what was expected of the Iraqi regime. If the Iraqi regime wished peace it must, among other things, immediately and unconditionally disclose, remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and other materials. It must also release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fates remained unaccounted for. It must cease persecution of its civilian populations, and immediately end all illicit trade outside the “oil-for-food” programme. If those steps were taken, it would signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it would open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represented all Iraqis -– based on human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.

    The United States had no quarrel with the people of Iraq, for they had suffered too long, he continued. Liberty for the Iraqi people was a great moral cause and strategic objective. They deserved it, and the security of all nations required it. The United States supported political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. The United States would work with the Security Council on a new resolution to meet the international community’s common challenge. If the Iraqi regime defied the international community again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold it in account. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted -– Security Council resolutions would be enforced and the demands of peace and security would be met or action would be unavoidable. “And a regime that had lost its legitimacy will also lose its power”, he said.

    Events could turn in one of two ways. If the international community failed to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq would continue to live in brutal submission, and the people of the wider region would continue to be bullied. Perhaps horrors even worse than 11 September would be wrought. But if the international community met its responsibilities, the people of Iraq could shake off their captivity and one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reform throughout the Muslim world. The international community must stand up for its security and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States would make that stand. And representatives of United Nations Member States had the power to make that stand as well.

    THABO MBEKI, President of South Africa, called on the United Nations to assist Africa in realizing its long-deferred dreams. He said the African Union, the successor to the Organization of African Unity, was the continent’s practical and determined response to its past and present, and the Union’s programme for its revitalization was the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).

    He called on the African Union, working with United Nations agencies, to give priority to such matters as human resources development and capacity-building, modernizing Africa’s economy and dealing with the intolerable debt burden, the emancipation and empowerment of women, AIDS and environmental degradation, among other things.

    He expressed approval for the peace processes taking place in such troubled areas as Angola, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Sudan and noted that elections had been successfully held in the Comoros. This would bring about the rebuilding of these countries with a better life for all.

    Mr. Mbeki also urged a concrete programme of action to implement the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and was equally emphatic about the obligation to give real meaning to the message of hope proclaimed in the Millennium Declaration, as an answer to the murderous attack of 11 September 2001.

    The Millennium Declaration, he said, recognized that the central challenge of the world today was to make globalization a positive force for he world’s people. This had to be ensured so that sustainable development and prosperity for all would take place.

    ALEJANDRO TOLEDO, President of Peru, reaffirmed his country’s commitment to the international community to fight for democracy and international security. He also condemned the terrorist attacks perpetrated against the people of the United States on 11 September 2001. Peru was committed to continued collaboration with the Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee. Nations must weave a vast network of commitments to cooperate in all areas to defeat terrorism. Decisive steps should be taken to eradicate terrorism, which threatened peace, security and democracy.

    Peace was an essential condition for human development, he said. Peru promoted limiting defence spending at the regional level with the goal of freeing resources for social investment and the fight against poverty. Today, more than ever, the international community must commit to the construction of a participatory and efficient system of collective security. Peru had promoted the Andean Charter for Peace and Security, approved last June by the Andean community. In the same spirit, Peru had reaffirmed its commitment to creating a South American Zone of Peace and Cooperation and proposed the inclusion of the topic in the agenda of the Assembly’s fifty-eighth session.

    The construction of peace and good governance was an indispensable prerequisite for the preservation of liberty, he said. Peru was aware of the urgent need to develop multilateral efforts to strengthen democracies. He reiterated Peru’s proposal to create a Mechanism of Financial Solidarity for the Defence of Democracy and Good Governance. The time had come to be creative. Emerging democracies urgently required new resources that would allow them to increase levels of public investment within their regions in order to generate employment and protect them from adverse financial shocks. Peruvian democracy was not an island in Latin America and the world. Peru was committed to facing great problems and challenges through the construction of democracy in a more just world. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, international democracy had a name: the United Nations.

    PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, President of Pakistan, said that his country was at the forefront of the fight against terrorism. Determined to prevent its being used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks, Pakistan had interdicted the infiltration of Al Qaeda into its territory and had arrested and deported foreign suspects. Unfortunately, however, the war against terrorism had been used as a vehicle to spread hatred against Islam and Muslims. As a first step in creating a sustained dialogue between the Islamic and Western nations, he proposed the adoption of a Declaration on Religious and Cultural Understanding, Harmony and Cooperation.

    Explaining that the root causes of terrorism were a sense of frustration and powerlessness to redress persistent injustice, he said that while terrorist attacks needed to be condemned, they should not be used to justify outlawing the struggles of a people for self-determination and liberation from colonial or foreign occupation, nor used to justify State terrorism. India had misused the rationale of war against terrorism against Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, but his country would not be coerced or frightened into compromising on its principled position. The conflict in occupied Kashmir was being waged by Kashmiris, who needed to be allowed to exercise their right to determine their own future.

    President Musharraf pledged that Pakistan would not start a conflict with India, but would fully exercise its right to self-defence if attacked. Achieving peace in South Asia required the following steps: mutual withdrawal of forward-deployed forces by both States; observance of a ceasefire along the Line of Control in Kashmir; and cessation of India’s State terrorism against the Kashmiri people. In addition, the two parties needed to resume a dialogue that included the people of Kashmir and to agree upon measures for nuclear restraint and a conventional arms balance. Hindu extremism also needed to be opposed by the international community.

    His own Government was focused upon restoring the traditions of a tolerant Islam, he said, and had laid the foundations for sustainable development and democracy in three short years by empowering people through the devolution of decision-making to the grassroots level, improving human rights, rationalizing economic policies and setting up the first Human Development Fund in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme. National and provincial elections were to be held in 30 days.

    Furthermore, Pakistan fully supported the positive changes in Afghanistan and that country’s President Hamid Karzai. The attempt last week to assassinate him underlined the need for an expanded international presence in Afghanistan. Also of concern were the urgent need to revive the Middle East peace process, the importance of the war against poverty and the pernicious aspects of the international banking system, which allowed corrupt elites to stash away money illegally acquired from developing and developed countries.

    GEORGI PARVANOV, President of Bulgaria, outlined what the main tasks of the fifty-seventh session should be. Attention had to be paid to the Millennium Declaration, the fight against terrorism and the persistent problems of underdevelopment and poverty. Unfortunately, the United Nations continued to focus instead on regional conflicts.

    In that regard, he called for assistance to the people of Afghanistan, especially relief from their foreign debt, and identified as urgent the implementation of Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq. Firm action had to be undertaken to win compliance.

    As a member of the Security Council and a party to all universal conventions against terrorism, Bulgaria commended the work being done to counteract the phenomenon. But he warned that “the fight against terrorism should not lead to persecution on religious or ethnic grounds or infringe on human rights”.
    Turning his attention to developments in South-Eastern Europe, he recommended the strengthening of democratic institutions and human rights along with economic development as the means to prevent conflicts. He ended his address by expressing support for the reform measures initiated by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in order to make the United Nations more effective.

    VAIRA VIKE-FREIBERGA, President of Latvia, welcomed Switzerland as the newest Member of the United Nations and recognized the concerted efforts of the United Nations and the international community towards creating a climate of peace and security, in which East Timor had become master of its own destiny and would soon join the United Nations. She also expressed Latvia’s continued solidarity and sympathy with the people of the United States, upon the anniversary of

    11 September. That contemptible act of aggression against the United States was a direct and frontal assault against the civilized world as a whole.

    The deep-seated respect for the sanctity of human life was the foundation of civilized society, she said. Determined to do everything in its power to stem the growing threat of international terrorism, Latvia intended to ratify all international antiterrorist conventions and increase the capacity of its administrative, security, law enforcement and military structures. Latvia continued to harmonize its national legislation with international and European Union standards, to tighten its control of immigration and the flow of strategic goods, to improve its air and border surveillance capabilities, emergency response procedures and public preparedness in emergency situations.

    She noted that Iraq continued to ignore repeated calls to allow United Nations weapons inspectors on its territory, which reinforced credible suspicions that it had sought to produce nuclear, chemical, bacteriological and other weapons of mass destruction. Among other pressing global issues facing the United Nations were organized crime and illegal trafficking, the abuse and exploitation of women and children, endemic poverty and unemployment, drug addiction, disease and environmental pollution. Continued work was needed on the reduction of poverty and increasing administrative capacity and financial discipline at the United Nations. However, progress had been made on the reform of peacekeeping operations and collaboration among United Nations institutions.

    Committed to sustainable development, Latvia had ratified the Kyoto Protocol and had established a Sustainable Development Council. She also noted Latvia’s success in changing its status with the United Nations Development Programme from recipient to net contributor. Now providing technical assistance and expertise to Ukraine, Georgia and Croatia, Latvia had one of the fastest growing economies in Europe and hoped to receive official invitations to join the European Union and the NATO Alliance soon. Her country had provided humanitarian aid to war-torn areas in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and was committed to the reduction of disparities in income and standards of living essential for the consolidation of peace and security. Each nation had its own contribution to make to humanity, whose benefit the United Nations was created to serve.

    VALDAS ADAMKUS, President of Lithuania, welcomed Switzerland and East Timor to the United Nations family. Expansion of United Nations membership was very important, and was taking place at a time when the need for global solidarity and partnership was greater than ever. Terrorism threatened global stability and the very basis of our lives. Countries must stand united and act together to avert threats to our existence and secure the future of our children.

    He said his country knew the power of solidarity. Some years ago, Lithuania and eight other countries from Central and Eastern Europe had formed an informal Vilnius Group, which had now grown to 10, to facilitate their accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Solidarity and mutual support were helping to make that happen. Hopefully, those countries would soon join the European Union and NATO, thus reinforcing common values in the region as well as common positions and actions in the face of future challenges and threats.

    Political stability, however, was not enough, he stressed. Those countries had also launched regional initiatives and taken other concrete steps to increase contributions to the global campaign against terrorism. The conference against terrorism was held at the Polish initiative of Poland in Warsaw last November; participating countries were determined to act and cooperate further, thus strengthening European and global security. In the face of common threats, solidarity must emerge as a consolidating driving force in global diplomacy.

    The tragedy of 11 September reinforced and strengthened the common resolve to combat and counter terrorism, he said. That should motivate the international community to work together to address the roots of terrorism; respond decisively to non-compliance with Security Council resolutions and gross violations of internationally recognized norms of behaviour; and fight terror worldwide and keep the weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. Regrettably, a Member of the United Nations did not uphold its commitments and the underlying principles of the Organization. The Iraqi regime must allow unrestricted access for the United Nations inspectors to resume their work. All pressure should be exerted to ensure that objective. Indeed, that was a test case of the international community’s solidarity and unity.

    RENE HARRIS, President of Nauru, conveying condolences to the United States because of the terrorist attacks of last year, expressed full support for anti-terrorism measures contained in Security Council resolution 1373. He also wished the best future for the International Criminal Court. Commending the United Nations operations in East Timor, he supported that country’s entry into the Organization.

    Turning to issues facing the Pacific islands, he called for a universal campaign to address climate change and for the United States and Australia to ratify the protocol. The health of oceans was another major concern, and he said all users of that resource must work to prevent pollution and unsustainable use. He expressed concern over transshipment of nuclear waste through Pacific waters, and supported the United Nations action to make the Pacific a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

    In other areas, he reiterated his strong objection to the creation of tax “black lists” by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), preferring the development of a cooperative framework for that issue. He said that Nauru also had done all it could to combat money laundering, yet it was still subject to adverse criticism. Nonetheless, it had provided relevant information and would continue to work on satisfying key players on the issue.

    Finally, he said the most pressing issues currently facing Nauru were energy, freshwater supply and the economy in general, and he hoped for international partnerships in those areas. He supported reform of the Security Council and further budgetary reform in the United Nations. He announced the honouring of Nauru’s pledge to the Global Health Fund and called on all States to follow suit, underlining the reliance of small States on the United Nations in the post 9/11 world.

    ROBERT MUGABE, President of Zimbabwe, informed delegates that his country had completed its fast-track land redistribution programme which began in July 2000. He said the programme had been undertaken to redress the colonial injustice of dispossession perpetrated by a minority of British settlers in 1890.

    “By assuming its independence in 1980, Zimbabwe had discarded the colonial yoke for all time and, therefore, will never brook any interference in its domestic affairs by any foreign Power”, he stressed. He added that Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, needed to be informed of this. Having already waged a revolutionary struggle to secure its independence, Zimbabwe stood ready to defend it in the same way.

    A similar problem of outside interference also affected the Palestinian question, one that should be resolved without further delay. “We note with some concern that some countries wish to arrogate to themselves the right to choose and/or impose leadership in developing countries by sidelining and/or overthrowing democratically elected governments.” That must be resisted, he said.

    Even as he acknowledged terrorism as a threat, he also warned, “The adoption of unilateral measures by some countries to combat terrorism is not only counterproductive but also undermines the mandate and effectiveness of the United Nations.”

    He was fully supportive of the emergence of peace in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, adding his country was withdrawing its remaining forces there.

    In the economic arena, Zimbabwe wanted the decisions of the Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development and the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, South Africa, to result in meaningful cooperation among development partners. The World Trade Organization (WTO) should also create a level playing field so that exports from developing countries could have access to developed markets. And, because of the drought in southern Africa, the region was in urgent need of food and other aid.

    ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN, Prime Minister of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, affirmed that the terrorist attacks of 11 September last year had not weakened, but rather strengthened the resolve of its members to actively seek security and prosperity for all. For its part, the European Union did not hesitate to support the initiatives of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee and remained committed to finalizing and adopting the Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism.

    The Millennium Declaration, he said, had given the United Nations renewed impetus to deal globally with conflict prevention, crisis management, humanitarian assistance, post-conflict rehabilitation and development, and disarmament and arms control. The European Union had worked tirelessly with the United Nations to find solutions in the Middle East and Cyprus, to rebuild Afghanistan, to hold in check the civil war in Sierra Leone and to rebuild Kosovo.

    Iraq remained a major source of concern as well, with regard to weapons of mass destruction, he said. Unconditional and unimpeded access for the weapons inspectors was needed, as well as compliance with the obligations contained in the several Security Council resolutions on the situation in Iraq. The European Union agreed with the United States position that the Security Council urgently needed to address the matter of Iraq. It also agreed with the Secretary-General’s statement that if Iraq’s defiance continued, the Security Council would need to face its responsibilities.

    On the subject of human rights, he urged the adoption of the draft protocol of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as the universal abolition of the death penalty. Sustainable development would not be achieved until women gained full possession of their human rights, including protection from murder and mutilation through a misguided sense of honour. Hailing the International Criminal Court as an important historic milestone, he commented that people did not need revenge or impunity, but justice and accountability.

    He concluded that the greatest global challenge remained the fight to rid the world of persistent poverty. Recognizing that aid alone would not eliminate poverty, he saluted the African leaders, who had taken an impressive lead with the NEPAD initiative. Strong political will and partnership was required to translate poverty eradication policies into sustainable development. He also extended the European Union’s welcome to the new United Nations Members, Switzerland and East Timor.