Fitzsimons Jeanette: General Debates 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: General Debates 
[Volume:606;Page:3573] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Earlier today I listened on the Internet to the meeting of the United Nations Security Council where the New Zealand representative has just delivered the Government’s very brief statement on Iraq to the United Nations General Assembly. It was very brief it was very middle of the road and it tried to have a bob each way. On the one hand it was very heartening to hear New Zealand’s representative say: “The inspection and disarmament process should continue. Force is not justified at this time. New Zealand strongly prefers a diplomatic solution. We do not support a United States attack without a UN mandate and a UN mandate is not justified at this time.” We have never been aligned with Blair and Howard on that issue and overall I compliment the Government on that. However on the other hand we have some real disappointment at what our representative did not say this morning.  
The Government urged Iraq to move rapidly to provide the information and cooperation requested so as to avert war. We would agree with that. But there is an assumption that war is the inevitable consequence of less than full cooperation. We have never attempted to apply that standard to any other country. Why should it be only Iraq that is invaded if it flouts United Nations resolutions? Even Resolution 1441 does not state that; it simply warns of serious consequences. Why does New Zealand in these debates not mention the 64 United Nations resolutions passed between 1955 and 1992 against Israel? Those resolutions repeatedly urged Israel to comply with previous resolutions deplored its lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces requested it to comply with the fourth Geneva convention and condemned various human rights abuses just to mention a few of them.  
The Security Council to its credit has never sanctioned the blanket bombing of Tel Aviv because of those non-compliance issues but neither have those issues been resolved. Nor has the UN taken any enforcement action against the permanent members of the Security Council for their non-compliance with disarmament resolutions. They are all known to possess weapons of mass destruction and the US has threatened to use them in a first strike. That is contrary to UN resolutions.  
There is no recognition in the New Zealand statement that Resolution 687 to which Resolution 1441 refers imposed an unprecedented level of intrusive inspections on a newly defeated nation in 1991. That nation has substantially cooperated—very belatedly and somewhat incompletely but it has allowed access and it has provided information. Even though suspicion remains no weapons have been found. Given the stated US intention to attack regardless of whether the UN mandates that it would not be unreasonable for Iraq to see the inspections as target location by the United States for a war it is determined to fight. In that context our Government is letting down all those who believe in the United Nations and who believe in collective action to preserve peace by stating that if the Security Council does mandate war we will uphold that decision. Normally that is what collective action should mean but we have to ask in the event of a Security Council resolution being contrary to the charter and purpose of the United Nations itself which should come first: loyalty to the charter and the spirit of the UN or loyalty to a rule that the Security Council speaks for everyone?  
Let me remind members that the charter states that the UN’s purposes include “maintaining international peace and security” and “the suppression of acts of aggression”. The preamble states a determination to ensure that “armed force shall not be used save in the common interest”. Article 33 states: “The parties to any dispute the continuation of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation enquiry mediation conciliation arbitration judicial settlement resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means”. Clearly armed attack especially by a superpower on an impoverished Third World country is contrary to the charter until all those means have been tried and have failed and even then there needs to be evidence that there is a threat to international peace and security.  
Those members of the UN who are committed to protecting its status as the only international body able to prevent war should state now that any resolution in support of a US attack would be illegal under the charter and that they would not feel obliged to uphold such a resolution. The future of the UN requires such a statement and it would be great to see our Government take a lead now in forming such a consensus. Instead it is having a bob each way with bland statements that are designed to upset no one but in fact please no one.