Anti-War Index to pages on this site and external links
Norwich Stop the War Coalition
Paddy's Normal Home page

The Eastern Daily Press continues editorially to support Bush and Blair and today effectively congratulates them on starting this illegal, cowardly and unprovoked attack on Iraq.


It is up to us to see that it is international public opinion that prevails against Bush and Blair.


So I start today's page with a poem, sent to me by American friends who recently spent a sabbatical in our little Norfolk village:

From: David Krieger []


To become a free on-line participating member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation,
click here:

David Krieger, President
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1
Santa Barbara, CA 93108-2794
Web site:


From the Eastern Daily Press, Thursday, March 20, 2003

UN is a victim of unilateral war.

Liberal Democrat Parliamentary spokesman,
South Norfolk Liberal Democrats,
Church Road, Wretton.

As Tony Blair fails to win a second resolution at the UN security council and has to rely on the Conservatives to secure a significant vote in favour of war in the Commons, his reputation as an international statesman is in tatters.

What is however of much greater importance is the potential for his actions to destabilise the world.

Since the end of the second world war, the United Nations, for all its shortcomings, was able to steer this planet through the very real risk of nuclear oblivion and `mutually assured destruction' in the Cold War.

It has kept in check extremists of all factions by securing support for UN action and programmes across all races, religions and creeds.

Now two countries which should be guarantors of its collective approach are acting pre-emptively and without broad backing across the world community.

This will have the effect of giving the green light to those countries who want to settle longstanding regional disputes by waging war, now able' to completely ignore UN resolutions and cite Britain and America as a prime example of their right to take unilateral action.

The very real evil of Saddam Hussein may be about to be destroyed in the coming war, but the consequences of destroying the authority of the UN may in the long term cause incalculable suffering across the whole world.

No authority needed to defend ourselves

Church Road, Ashmanhaugh.

Although all the protests against a war have been commendable, I would like to ask what all the anti-war protesters will be shouting when Saddam launches chemical and biological attacks against Britain and our allies in the US.

Will they be demanding to know why the relevant governments. did not act in defence sooner?

We and the US should not need permission from the UN to act in defence when national security is threatened.

There will be crimes against humanity

KENNETH J MOSS, Gilman Road, Norwich.

History will ask whether the UN has or has not given authority for us to invade Iraq, unprovoked.

So far as past resolutions are concerned, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, differs from almost all equal or greater legal luminaries in his confidence that the old UN resolutions 678 and 687 - which did suggest authority for war - need no formal re-activation.

So far as the present situation is concerned, the three belligerents us; the US and Spain - have refused to go to the Security Council for such explicit approval; they knew it would be refused, making it clear that there was indeed no authority for military action.

It seems that this war is an internationally illegal act of aggression, and, judging by the scatterbombs and other weapons displayed by our forces in Iraq, we are also preparing to commit crimes against humanity in the process.

I feel ashamed to be British.


From the Eastern Daily Press, March 18, 2003:

Use of force in Iraq illegal

United Nations Association Norwich & District Branch,
Connaught Rd, Norwich

Norwich & District Branch of the United Nations Association is deeply concerned at premature or illegal use of force against Iraq.

No authority has been given by the UN Security Council. Non-specific phrases (such as "serious consequences" in Resolution 1441) are not authority for invasion.

Any further resolution should state clearly whether military action is authorised, and should be justified by comprehensive evidence that the Iraqi Government is an imminent threat to international security.

Regime change through military intervention is nowhere authorised in international law.

We agree with Kofi Annan that the serious misgivings of countries on the council over the appropriateness of military action should be taken very : seriously.

We favour a longer-term approach. The Security Council could list all requirements which Iraq still needs to fulfil.

Iraq could be given (say) 120 days to co-operate, to allow inspection to be comprehensively completed and a start made on destruction of all relevant weapons, materials and delivery systems found. The Security Council then could decide what further measures to take.

We want the council to work in harmony and, as far as possible, by consensus. Our Government and the US should work towards that consensus.

In no way would such an approach appease Saddam; but it might avoid military enforcement, suffering, and the uncertainties it would bring in its wake.

Anti-War Index   Next Page

Anti-War Index to pages on this site and external links
Norwich Stop the War Coalition
Paddy's Normal Home page