WOCIT HP E-IRAQ-PROPOSAL-UN-HS-MP
(2004-8-3)

Jiswan Park Biru, 3F, 1-chohme,
Kita-2-39, Nangohdohri, Shiroishiku,
Sapporo city, Japan, 003-0023

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan
All the Heads of State in the World
All the Parliamentarians in the World

　 The WOCIT’s Proposal concerning the Iraq War
　

　　 I have the honor to inform you, Dear Mr. Secretary-General Kofi-Annan, Dear Heads of State and Dear Parliamentarians in the World, that the World Citizens' Tribunal (WOCIT) has been functioning since the year 2000, taking into account the interests of all human-beings as well as national interests.
　　The WOCIT was founded in Japan in order to contribute to amicable settlements of international disputes and to establish a World Community governed by the principle of “rule by law”. The WOCIT is of neutral and universal character, and though it was created on the basis of an initiative of many citizens of the World, we would like to cooperate in conjunction with the United Nations and other World States, as well as Self-governing communities, as is stipulated in our fundamental document. (For further information please see our web site: http://www.wocit.org).
   In the WOCIT there is a General Assembly and various Courts. One of them is the Interim Court, to which 11 cases concerning international disputes have been submitted. It seems that the 10^thPetition presented July 5, 2003, requests, in principle, humanitarian support for Iraq while the 12^th Petition of December 18, 2004, requests, among other things, to ascertain whether military invasion is aggression or not.
　　Here I would like to call attention to the fact that "the WOCIT is a peaceful court of sound judgment," and that "even if the WOCIT receives a Petition, it does not go directly to a judicial judgment, but first of all, establishes office to seek mediation, and conciliation, and, during litigation, it proposes compromises to contesting parties seven times." (WOCIT Prospectus, 24)
    To judge legal aspects is the function of the WOCIT’ Courts, not of the General Assembly. However, the problems in Iraq have assumed such serious dimensions that between May 7 and May 21, 2004, the WOCIT General Assembly deliberated over the matters concerned, and on the 21st day decided to propose constructive measures for consideration by the United Nations and other World States.
    I have the pleasure to inform all of you, Dear Mr. Secretary-General Kofi-Annan and Dear Top Leaders in the World, of the below-mentioned PROPOSAL which was adopted by the WOCIT General Assembly on the??? Day, April 2004. The WOCIT individual opinions are attached to this email.

Very truly yours,

　　　　　　　　　 World Citizens' Tribunal
　　　　　　　　　　　　President Rikio Kaneko
　　　　　　　　　　　　21 May 2004.

P.S.
　　Dear Mr. Secretary-General Kofi-Annan and Dear Heads of State: I have the additional pleasure of informing you that I have sent a document dated April 16, 2004, to each Head of State whose country has a Permanent Mission to the United Nations, requesting him or her to recommend ten Judge Candidates for the WOCIT. Please refer to the attachment in this email.　
　 Furthermore, the Secretary-General and Chairperson of the United Nations are asked to recommend 10 Judge Candidates respectively. The Special Agency also is asked to recommend 10 Judge Candidates. Each Parliamentarian in the World is asked to recommend 2 Judge Candidates.

PROPOSAL ON IRAQ CONFLICT

THE WORLD CITIZENS’ TRIBUNAL
21^st May 2004 year, Sapporo, Japan

WE THE MEMBERS OF THE WORLD CITIZENS’ TRIBUNAL, UNIVERSAL NGO,
　　DETERMINED to contribute to establishing a World Community ruled by law, not violence, and to settling international conflicts by peaceful means, not by force, however,
　　WITNESSING illegal acts committed against international law; many innocent citizens and soldiers dying every day; disorder with violence continuing in Iraq; and disagreements regarding international cooperation,
　　EQUESTING every belligerent party to stop violence and to refrain from using force; to make efforts to settle the Iraqi conflict by peaceful means, and every State of Head to cooperate with each other and the United Nations in order to restore peace in Iraq,
　　ADOPTED the present PROPOSAL in our General Assembly, appealing to the United Nations, all Heads of State and all World Citizens.

A. SELF-DETERMINATION AND UN CHARTER

1. Firstly, we want everyone to pay attention to the Charter of the United Nations. According to Article 1 of the Charter, one of the three purposes of the United Nations is:

　　To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace (Paragraph 2)

Here readers understand that ensuring SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES is a very important task facing the United Nations together with these two responsibilities: to maintain international peace and security, and to achieve international cooperation in the areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

2. Secondly, World States must respect treaties, which they agree to, executing them in good faith as the Charter of the United Nations stipulates (Article 2, Paragraph 2)

　　　3. Thirdly, Article 103 of the United Nations, often taken lightly or ignored by World States, must be followed. Article 103 declares that:

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under present Charter shall prevail.

Here we would like to stress that every Member-State as well as the United Nations itself shall respect self-determination of the Iraqi people and that right is inviolable.

B. NEUTRAL MECHANISM AND DIRECT ELECTION

4. Now let us consider how to establish peace, order and democracy in Iraq. So long as there remains disorder and military confrontations, and the governing body is controlled by the State which invaded Iraq, it may be unfair, dangerous and impossible to conduct elections.
　　Why? It is probable and highly likely that the method of election may be regarded to be unfair. Those who are excluded from political office or for some reasons may continue to resist and fight with weapons under such situations as at present time, stressing the nullity of such election.In addition, the oppositional forces may insist that there was more or less manipulation by the present governing body during the course of the election. Furthermore, oppositional forces may attack polling stations, with the result being of nonvoters increasing, voting minutes disappearing.

　　　5. This means, firstly, that the present governing system must be changed into a mechanism of neutrality. The more neutral it is, the fairer, safer and the more practicable it will be.
　　　Secondly, this means that it is very desirable for foreign military forces of non-neutral character to withdraw their troops from Iraq.
　　　Thirdly, it is necessary to ponder the problems of disorder or chaos if there is no military force to control violence in Iraq. If military forces of more neutral countries, the existence of which should be recognized explicitly by the United Nations, maintain a presence in Iraq, then a far less number of foreign troops will be needed for keeping order because such troops will be regarded as less aggressive.
　　　Fourthly, there is no doubt that from the viewpoint of respect for SELF-DETERMINATION of the Iraqi people, a direct election should be conducted by the Iraqi people themselves (when they alone are able to conduct fair, safe and practicable elections).

C. IMMEDIATE PROPOSAL BY THE UNITED NATIONS

　 6. The United Nations or the States interested in Iraq must present IMMEDIATELY a program of neutrality concerning the neutralization of foreign military forces and the method of direct general election by the Iraqi people, taking into account the wishes of the Iraqi people. Failure to adopt a position of neutrality will in all likelihood, prolong the military conflict.

7. This means that the United Nations, all World States, and other States interested in Iraq, should COOPERATE WITH EACH OTHER for the purpose of conducting fair elections in Iraq. National interests and “oil interests” should not have priority over the neutralization of the election system.

8. Considering the interests of the Iraqi people in general, we propose several ESSENTIAL POINTS FOR AN ELECTION SYSTEM as follows:
　　　1) The ballot must be extended to women and a vote must be also given, as a rule, to any person who is regarded as a criminal for political reasons by the present governing body.
　　　2) Who is allowed to address the Iraqi people publicly in an election? It is not fair to exclude any person who is regarded as a criminal for political reasons by the present governing body. It is possible that such candidates may actually win in a free election.
　　　3) It is most desirable to organize a neutral and international Election Administration Commission in order to conduct fair elections in a safe and normal environment. Some members of the Commission should be Iraqis, including a representative people who are regarded as criminal by present governing body for political reasons.
　　　4) On the day of the election only soldiers of neutral character should protect polling places in order to permit Iraqi people to express their will freely.
　　　5) We also propose that representatives of those regarded as criminals for political reasons by the present governing body be witnesses at the polls.

　　　　　 D. APPEAL TO STOP THE USE OF WEAPONS

9. We request all the belligerent parties to hold a general armistice and to stop the use of weapons immediately in order to restore peace in Iraq and conduct fair and direct elections there. We not only request it, but we believe that humanity demands it.

10. It is obvious that many innocent or non-combatant people died from sever attacks by the invading soldiers, which increase hatred towards them. According to statistics (email of January 3, 2004,from TRENW, [hap]2566), there have been 23 times more deaths of non-combatant Iraqis than invading soldiers!

11. It is necessary here to say that if they insist to continue to fight each other, they should observe strictly the principles and rules of international law. It is very regretful and sorrowful that belligerent parties do not always respect international law, which leads to serious and lamentable casualties. According to international law, soldiers and military objects may be attacked but not civilians, particularly women, children nor any citizen without a weapon.

12. It is intolerable that some soldiers treat prisoners with cruelty. Long ago in many countries, prisoners were cruelly treated as criminals and as objects of personal revenge, but such treatment is clearly illegal in modern society. Recent examples of inhuman abuse and treatment of prisoners by certain invading soldiers is never permissible.

　　13. On the other hand, we also request Iraqi combatants to respect international law. The Geneva Convention of 1949 on the Protection of Civilians clearly states that ‘the taking of hostages is prohibited’ (Article 34), and that no person protected by the Convention may be punished for an offence, which he or she has not personally committed. Furthermore, various war crime tribunals have determined that the killing of hostages is a war crime. There is no doubt as to the legality of these decisions. (International Law, L.Oppenheim, Vol.2, pp.590-592, Longman, 1969.)

14. It seems to us, however, that so long as the present non-neutral foreign military force continues to exist in Iraq, violence and military conflicts will occur.

15. Why will such a miserable situation continue? Firstly, from a legal viewpoint, present foreign troops in Iraq are regarded by many jurists (and peoples of not only Iraq but also the other countries) as aggressive, and aggression is illegal and against international law.

F. PERMISSION OF THE EMPLOYMEMT OF ARMED FORCES

16. Here it is necessary to pay attention to the international OBLIGATION TO SETTLE DISPUTE BY PEACEFUL MEANS such as negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. (Article 33)

　　17. We are of the opinion that Member-States may employ armed forces only in two cases mentioned below:
　　　　　1) AUTHORIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (Articles 42 and 53)
　　　　　2) SELF-DEFENSE It goes without saying that Members have the right of self-defense. (Article 51)

18. Neither America nor England was attacked by Iraq. This means that they cannot invoke the right of self-defense. Then, did they get authorization of the United Nations?

G. WAS THERE AUTHORIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS?

     19. November 8, 2002, the Security Council of the United Nations adopted Resolution 1441, deciding that Iraq shall provide the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ‘immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted’ access for inspection purposes (paragraph 5). In the Resolution the Security Council
          Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its
continued violations of its obligations;(paragraph 13) 　
     The expression ‘severest consequences’ was written in the Resolution adopted March 2, 1998.

     20. Do these expressions mean the United Nations authorized Members to employ armed forces of their countries individually as representatives of America, England and other States? The majority were not in favor of such interpretation.

　　21. Of the said Resolution, 1441, the Security Council ‘Decides to remain seized of the matter’ which means that the matter is pending and must be deliberated further. Regarding Iraq, America wanted to get authorization of the United Nations, but seeing that their draft proposal would not be adopted by the Security Council, they began to prepare for an armed attack without express authorization of the UN, and declared that the Head of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, would escape from his country/ Hussein, did not, as presumed, leave the country, and on March 20, 2003, US military forces began to invade Iraq, using surprisingly modern military technology.
　　　Here, too, World Citizens will understand how the present system of the United Nations is imperfect and undemocratic: only one of 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council can deny the adoption of any Resolution by veto as if an absolute King, and if a Permanent Member begins an armed attack, the State will enforce military action, blocking new Resolutions of the Security Council by use of its veto.

22. So long as States have their armed forces and interpret international documents subjectively, employing State armed forces self-righteously, it is inevitable that there will be many military conflicts in the future. Logic demands that:
　　　　1)　The UN Security Council be reorganized so that its 5 Permanent Members do not have veto power.
　　　　2) 　there must exist international courts of justice which would have compulsory jurisdiction over legal disputes in international law.
　　　　3) States must decrease their armed forces, achieving general and complete disarmament ‘with the least diversion for armaments of the　 world’s human and economic resources’ (Charter, Article 26).
　　　　4) We request the UN Member States to undertake to make available to the Security Council armed forces in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. (UN Charter, Article 43)

23. The World Citizens’ Tribunal received 2 Petitions pertaining to the Iraq War: In a word, one of them requests support for Iraq, the other poses questions to determine whether or not the military invasion is an act of aggression or not. Within the WOCIT system it is not the General Assembly but one of its Courts that will judge legal issues.
　　　From the view point of rule by law, not by force nor self-righteousness, we are of the opinion that in such a case the State which regards one’s act as lawful should propose or agree to submit legal questions to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), at least asking Advisory Opinions of the ICJ.

H. RULE BY LAW AND COURT OF JUSTICE

24. We want people all over the World to pay attention to one of the very important and generally recognized principles of international law, namely, non-intervention in internal matters. Even the United Nations must not intervene in the internal matters of Members. (Charter, Article 2, Paragraph 7). Without authorization of the United Nations no Member has a right neither to invade the territory of another Member nor to change its political, economical, social or other systems.

　　　25. Here it is clear that the invasion of Iraq itself is also a serious legal problem, and yet it is of preliminary character. If the invasion is an illegal act against the Charter of the United Nations and at the same time is shown to be aggression in international law, the invaded State is not under any obligation to recognize the actions which result from that invasion: ‘From an illicit contract no action arises’ (Ex pacto illicito non oritur action.)

26. Consequently justice demands, first of all, to ascertain whether the invasion in question is lawful in international law.

27. The problem that we are now faced with is whether there is such an international court of justice which has compulsory jurisdiction over such a case. The answer is No. All the existing international courts of justice, which have been created by World States, are self-serving. These courts have jurisdiction over the dispute only when the conflicting parties have agreed to jurisdiction.

28. The Prospectus of our WOCIT points out one of the essential defects of the system of the United Nations and present international systems is as follows:
　　　Though there exists the Organization of the United Nations, it is a system where the Citizens’ securities and those of World States are not guaranteed sufficiently because of abuses of the veto of the permanent members of the Security Council. In addition, the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) would not have in principle, jurisdiction when there is not an agreement between the parties of the said jurisdiction and individuals would not have a right to bring an action to it. This is one of the reasons why we created the WOCIT.

　　　　　　　　　　I. CONCLUSION

29. We the members of the WOCIT stress and propose that:
　　1) First of all, the United Nations, all States, all people over the World should respect the right of SELF-DETERMINATION of the Iraq people;
　　2) the present governing system in Iraq must be changed into a mechanism of most neutral character as soon as possible;
　　3) foreign military forces of non-neutral character which invaded Iraq should withdraw their troops from Iraqi land;
　　4) The United Nations or the States interested in Iraq must present IMMEDIATELY a program of neutrality concerning the neutralization of foreign military forces and a method of direct general election by the Iraqi people, taking into account the wishes of the Iraqi people;
　　5) direct elections should be conducted by the Iraqi people themselves when they alone are able to conduct fair, safe and practicable elections;
　　6) all the belligerent parties should agree to a general armistice and stop the use of weapons immediately; and
　　7) The United Nations, all States, Self-governing communities and Citizens all over the World should cooperate to establish rule by law on the World.