1 Does "Disarm Iraq" mean Iraq will be like Japan and Germany after the second world

2 Expression of the will of the International Community

3 Proposal for a Emergency Special Session of the UN General Assembly to debate Iraq.

4 Defining appropriate measurable criteria as to when leaders should vacate office.

======================================================

In a recent Tuesday 21 Jan 03) speech US President George Bush said their aim is to "Disarm Iraq". Does this mean that in future Iraq will have limitations on its military and arms expenditure like Japan and Germany after the second world and less arms for oil in the Middle East?

======================================================

In your recent interview with a French Minister; from the Paris suburbs (speaking about the weekend demonstrations - I think), I noticed how he stressed that War on Iraq if approved by the Security Council would be an expression of the will of the International Community. Whilst the UN Security Council does represent part of the will of or views of the international community; surely the UN General Assembly is a more representative body. Such important and contentious issues as a War on Iraq should be debated by an Emergency Special Session of the UN General Assembly.

====================================================================

Dear Editor,

Before the Iraq situation is resolved, and especially before the United Nations (UN) Security Council resolves "by any means necessary" (i.e. war is OK), there should be an emergency special of the UN General Assembly to debate the Iraq and its implications.

The UK government is to be commended for holding a debate in Parliament on Iraq last September. Most committees put contentious and important issues to their members. Surely a leading, democratic and ethical body such as the UN should give its members a chance to freely express their opinions on such important issues.

There are very important issues at stake, such as; weapons of mass destruction (small arms and light weapons "The death toll from small arms dwarfs that of all other weapons systems - and in most years greatly exceeds the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In terms of the carnage they cause, small arms, indeed, could well be described as 'weapons of Mass Destruction'" Kofi Annan 2000, Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, Article 26, Pandora's box); the international community's responsibility to protect; the relative silence over the almost 3 million people that have died in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the last four years; the rights of the state, repressive despotic rulers and an oppressed people, achieving humanitarian rights, despots and dictators; defining appropriate measurable criteria as to when leaders should vacate office, sanctions, governance; democracy; non violent resolution of conflict; resources (oil) for arms; verification; ethics and values of leadership; Visions of Iraq's peoples future, solutions / how to get there, etc.

The final decision may rest with the UN Security Council; but surely the UN General assembly should be invited and given the opportunity to debate these issues.

P.S. I think that if the present regime in Iraq had an ounce of humanity they would resign. They have had their term, tried their best; but that has resulted in the wasting of their nations wealth, the suffering of their people, millions of tormented souls, and the loss of millions of lives. They could prevent more suffering, torment and loss of life by resigning. Nevertheless the conflict can and should be resolved non-violently.

The Kofi Annan quote is from 'We the Peoples' The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century' page 52 - Freedom from fear - Pursuing Arms reduction - small arms. Obtainable from UNA, UNIC.
Note: This is Version 2, changes underlined. ARC info is at: www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/archome.htm   ARC Resolution to endorse is at: www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/ARCLeaf1.htm

===================================================================

Dear Editor,

Crisis such as those in Iraq and Zimbabwe could be avoided if the United Nations (UN) defined and agreed appropriate measurable criteria as to when leaders should vacate office. As some leaders ignore or ride rough shod over their constitutions that define such criteria it will be useful for us to have a UN standard. Such criteria could include their agreement to abide by such UN criteria, constitutional provisions, the human development index, human rights, economic factors, environmental factors, popular and political support, maximum length of time, and of course the number of lives lost due to the Leaders policies.

It should not include arbitrary criteria; such as when any of the Permanent Members of the UN security council say they should go, or when a group of army officers decide it is time to break their oaths to protect their country, seize power and loot the Treasury; as has so often been the case during the life of the UN. Such criteria should be appropriate to the different political systems in different countries. For example modern democracies may require more stringent criteria than fledging democracies or other forms of government. Major problems such as some current leaders would not agree to any criteria that indicate they should go can be solved by delaying the coming into effect of such criteria and other strategies. The good legacy it will give future generations should make leaders feel proud to have their name associated positively with defining such criteria.

The people always seems to know when leaders should go (ok some people are biased) so it must be possible to define such measurable criteria. If the water coming from the top of the mountain is dirty or contaminated, it can't be clean in the valley below.

I will be grateful if any of your readers could inform us if there are any such criteria defined or papers on this topic.