<<<<
Dear RMC,<<<<
I've attached a note from John Rempel, MCC at the UN, with suggestions for encouraging UN representatives who will vote against war against Iraq. His note also explains how a veto in the Security Council would allow Pres. Bush to save face while a vote against war will embarrass. Very, very often I think of you with love and appreciation. My warm greetings!
Sara
Now, from John Rempel:
Friends,
At this time of impending war it is extremely difficult to judge where
influence can best be exercised for peace. Several people working on the Iraq
crisis believe that words of encouragement to countries clearly favoring
alternatives to war would be energy well spent. If the US-UK-Spain cannot get a
majority of votes on the Security Council, they cannot make further decisions
with the support of the United Nations.
Even sending one electronic message is an expression of support for peace.
If you are able to do more, that is good, but even one e-mail has a purpose.
Below is an information package to help you decide what to do. Thanks for your
actions and prayers. Feel free to forward it to friends.
With thanks, John
The initiative to write e-mails to Security Council members is a good one.
I suggest that you also encourage your recipients to send letters via the
post, in addition to e-mails. Below I include postal addresses. Moreover,
I recommend your recipients to rank order their Security Council member
recipients into two categories: "Undecided Elected Members Who Clearly Favor
Alternatives to War" and "Undecided Elected Members Now Leaning toward the
US/UK Position". I have separated these countries by category and included
some notes.
Ideally, the US/UK/Spain will fail to get sufficient votes for this or any
other resolution. Insufficient votes are preferable to a veto (most likely
from France). A veto may make it easier for Bush and Blair to domestically
save face. If a permanent member exercises a veto against the US/UK, Bush
and Blair will probably claim that it was a "capricious" or "political"
veto. Insufficient votes will be far more difficult to handle, especially
for Blair. This is why the undecided elected members are now perhaps more
important than the permanent three (China, France and Russia).
1. Undecided Elected Members Who Clearly Favor Alternatives to War
ANGOLA
Note: On 20 February, 52 African countries "backed France's push Thursday
for more time for U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. "There is an
alternative to war," representatives of the 52 African nations at the
[African-Franco] summit said in a joint statement that echoed France's
views." Angola was one of those countries. (Reuters, "African Leaders Say
Back French Stance on Iraq", 20 February 2003,
<http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2262479>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2262479)
Note: The Financial Times reported on 25 February that of the three African
Security Council members, Angola may be the most susceptible to Bush
Administration pressure. (David White and James Lamont, "At Least Two
African Nations May Back US", Financial Times, 25 February 2003,
<http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511134847&p=1031119383196>http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511134847&p=1031119383196
)
Note: In their 5 February and 14 February statements at the Security Council
meetings on Iraq, Angolan officials stressed that Angola knew firsthand of
the horrors of war and therefore supported a peaceful resolution to the Iraq
crisis.
E-mail: ang-un@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Address:
H.E. Mr. Ismael Gaspar Martins
Permanent Mission of the Republic of Angola to the United Nations
125 East 73rd Street
New York, NY 10021
CAMEROON
Note: On 20 February, 52 African countries "backed France's push Thursday
for more time for U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. "There is an
alternative to war," representatives of the 52 African nations at the
[African-Franco] summit said in a joint statement that echoed France's
views." Cameroon was one of those countries. (Reuters, "African Leaders Say
Back French Stance on Iraq", 20 February 2003,
<http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2262479>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2262479)
E-mail: info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Address:
H.E. Martin Belinga Eboutou
Permanent Mission of Cameroon to the United Nations
22 East 73rd Street
New York, NY 10021
CHILE
Note: Louise Egan, "Chile Still Undeclared on Iraq Vote at U.N.", Reuters,
24 February 2003,
<http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2279932>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2279932
Note: "Mexico and Chile continue to resist any military action" (James
Harding and Mark Turner, "US Faces Uphill Task in Winning Swift UN Mandate",
Financial Times, 25 February 2003)
5 February statement to Security Council meeting on Iraq:
<http://www.un.int/chile/Statements/speech20030205>http://www.un.int/chile/Statements/speech20030205
14 February statement to Security Council meeting on Iraq:
<http://www.un.int/chile/Statements/speech20030214>http://www.un.int/chile/Statements/speech20030214
E-mail: chile@xxxxxx
Address:
H.E. Juan Gabriel Valdes
Permanent Mission of Chile to the United Nations
305 East 47th Street
10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
GUINEA
Note:
Note: On 20 February, 52 African countries "backed France's push Thursday
for more time for U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. "There is an
alternative to war," representatives of the 52 African nations at the
[African-Franco] summit said in a joint statement that echoed France's
views." Guinea was one of those countries. (Reuters, "African Leaders Say
Back French Stance on Iraq", 20 February 2003,
<http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2262479>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2262479)
E-mail: guinea@xxxxxx
Address:
H.E. Mamady Traore
Permanent Mission of Guinea to the United Nations
140 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10017
MEXICO
Note: Associated Press, "Mexico Appears to Shift to U.S. on Iraq", 26
February 2003,
<http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Rdp.html>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Rdp.html
Note: "Mexico and Chile continue to resist any military action" (James
Harding and Mark Turner, "US Faces Uphill Task in Winning Swift UN Mandate",
Financial Times, 25 February 2003)
E-mail: mexico@xxxxxx
Address:
H.E. Adolph Aguilar Zinser
Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations
2 United Nations Plaza
28th floor
New York, NY 10017
PAKISTAN
Note: Because it is a primarily Muslim country, and because of its political
situation, Pakistan will almost surely vote against or abstain from a vote
to use force against Iraq. It might take the same position on a resolution
that is primarily a trigger mechanism, although not force authorization.
Note: In their 5 February and 14 February statements to the Security Council
meetings on Iraq, Pakistani officials stressed the ongoing and potential
suffering of the Iraqi people.
E-mail: pakistan@xxxxxx
Address:
H.E. Munir Akram
Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations
8 East 65th Street
New York, NY 10021
2. Undecided Elected Members Now Leaning toward the US/UK Position
BULGARIA
E-mail: bulgaria@xxxxxx
Address:
H.E. Stefan Tafrov
Republic of Bulgaria Permanent Mission to the United Nations
11 East 84th Street
New York, NY 10028
John Rempel
Liaison
Mennonite Central Committee United Nations Office
866 United Nations Plaza (48th St. at 1st Ave.) Room 575
New York NY 10017
T: (212) 223-4062; F: (212) 750-1194, E: unoffice@xxxxxxx
Visit the MCC UN Office web site
<http://www.mcc.org/bi/un/index.html>http://www.mcc.org/bi/un/index.html
