Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar
Secretary-General,
United Nations, New York
Mr. Secretary-General,
I address you, on this first day of the year, as a citizen of the world who has been closely associated with the United Nations System, during the last forty years, in various capacities : member of the Delegation of my country to the United Nations before and after independence, trainee in the UN Secretariat, international civil servant (during 18 years), Professor of international organization, and as a militant for human rights and peace.
I have been on the outlook on the eve of the new year and on new year's day, in the international press and broadcasting stations of different countries, for a few words or a message from the Secretary General during these very difficult times where international peace has never been more threatened in the history of the United Nations. This search has so far remained unsatisfied. Hence the purpose of this "open letter".
Your 1990 Report on the Activities of the United Nations (September) as well as the Statement you made on 29 November 1990, after the Security Council's action authorizing use of "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance with its decisions (Resolution 678) were sources of hope in spite of the seriousness of the prevailing international tensions.
The almost total absence of any reference to the United Nations, or its Secretary-general, since the adoption of the Security Council Resolution of 29 November, in the statements of statesmen and high government officials of countries directly implicated in the Gulf crisis, is most disquieting. Especially when contrasted with the diplomatic excitement of some of the Great Powers - and the hysteria of their mass media which prevailed prior to the adoption of that resolution.
Thirty-three days have gone by without any major public policy statement from the Secretary-General. A Secretary-General who insisted on 29 November 1990 on the "45 days of earnest effort to achieve solution of the crisis", before adding, "mindful of the responsibility inherent of my Office, I must express the hope that this time will be used to the most constructive purpose." Not to mention the secretary-general who had the courage to state, two months ago that the validity of Article 51 concerning the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense" had expired.
I am certain that you are fully conscious of your responsibilities as they emerge from the Charter of the United Nations, especially Article 99 which enables the Secretary-General "to bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security".
Rules 22 and 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the Security Council as well as your constant recourse, and those of your predecessors, leave no doubt as to the right of initiative of the Secretary-General, in addition to the "other functions as are entrusted to him" by the organs of the Organization (article 98).
Everybody knows, from a simple reading of the press, that great pressures, including financial and budgetary ones, have been exerted on the Secretary-General and have hampered the effective performance of his task during this crisis, from the very beginning, including his traditional role as the first "mediator" on the international scene. You have personally managed to make a very positive and successful use of this capacity in the solution of many other international crises.
What is at stake today, Mr. Secretary-General, and you know it better than anyone else, is no more and no less than the credibility of the United Nations as the only existing international institution devoted to the maintenance of peace. Resolution 678 of the Security Council, by its use of vague expressions such as "all necessary means" and the absence of any reference to articles 46 and 47 of the Charter which qualify and set conditions for the application of Article 42, can become a cause of war and an obstacle to peace unless these conditions are scrupulously respected.
Quite diplomacy has its great merits particularly in the case of the Secretary-General of the United Nations but he also has deontological and pedagogical responsibilities in expliciting the respect of the international rule of law. In such cases silence may not necessarily be the best contribution to the maintenance of peace at a time when psychological warfare is at its peak.
As the deadline of 15 January set by the Security Council is only two weeks away, world public opinion needs to know, from a moral, legal and technical point of view, that the recourse to "all necessary means" must be determined by the Security Council itself after 15 January. And that it is the Security Council, and no one else, which would then have to decide what is the nature of these means including the use of force as well as the conditions which must be respected as foreseen by Articles 46 and 47 of the Charter concerning UN military action.
Only the Secretary General has the moral and legal authority to make such clarifications to enlighten international public opinion and to reduce the risks of a quasi-unilateral aggression a thousand times more disastrous than the one it is meant to correct.
Mr. Secretary General, this is an appeal to the most responsible world citizen to speak out the law and to intervene more openly to fulfill the cardinal purpose of the United Nations Charter - the preservation of peace. Influential Congressmen in the United States Congress, representatives of several members of the new Western "Coalition", the European Economic Community, the President of the Non-Aligned Movement, religious authorities of different creeds, national and international and non-governmental associations from numerous countries and sectors have all embarked during these last few days on a crusade for peace.
Everybody is awaiting an initiative of the Secretary General, even Mr. Brzenski writes in the Washington Post of 31 December,
"Better still, the Europeans and the United Nations should get into the act, for the crisis should not be a purely American-Iraqi affair... Similarly, the UN secretary-general has the obligation to make a last effort to establish whether a nonviolent formula, based on the UN resolutions can be contrived."
Your silence could be interpreted as an act of dignity in the face of the way in which you high responsibilities have been disregarded if not ignored by powerful members of the Organization. If this is the case, I think that the point has been driven across to most observers of the United Nations. You have acquired enough respect and achieved some unquestionable successes in the fulfillment of your responsibilities during these last years, as secretary-general, to enable you to raise to the expectations of all the lovers of peace - the vast majority of humanity - who are eagerly awaiting for a voice of wisdom, reason and love to speak out in the face of an
unprecedented crisis of governance and of ethics.
Mahdi Elmandjra
Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar
Secretary-General,
United Nations, New York
Sir,
On the 1st of January 1991, I appealed to you to intervene for the preservation of peace in the following terms,
"...the Secretary-General of the United Nations ... also has deontological and pedagogical responsibilities in explicating the respect of the international rule of law. In such cases silence may not necessarily be the best contribution to the maintenance of peace at a time when psychological warfare is at its peak.
"As the deadline of 15 January set by the Security Council is only two weeks away, world public opinion needs to know, from a moral, legal and technical point of view, that the recourse to "all necessary means" must be determined by the Security Council itself after 15 January...
"Only the Secretary General has the moral and legal authority to make such clarifications, to enlighten international public opinion and to reduce the risks of a quasi-unilateral aggression a thousand times more disastrous than the one it is meant to correct.
"Mr. Secretary General, this is an appeal to the most responsible world
citizen to speak out the law and to intervene more openly to fulfill the
cardinal purpose of the United Nations Charter - the preservation of peace..."
You must have received scores of similar appeals to save mankind from the scourge of war. They seem to have remained unheeded. Why did you have to wait until after 15 January to start saying that the war in the Gulf was not a United Nations war ? Had such a statement been made before January 17 the world might have been different than it is today.
I have been shocked sir, by your use of the terms "just" and "legal"
in connection with war. Your assertion that the war in the Gulf is a "legal
war" is not only distasteful but is in violation with the cardinal purpose
of the United Nations which is to maintain peace.
Reading the verbatim records of your talk with the President of Iraq on 13 January 1991, I have been struck by the desire you expressed to visit Iraq as a tourist because of the richness of its cultural heritage. The irony of it all is that, as far as I know, you have not been particularly outspoken about the destruction of a part of this heritage including the National Museum of Baghdad, not to speak of numerous archeological and religious sites. And yet you have a responsibility like the Director General of UNESCO with respect to the application of the Hague Convention (1954) concerning the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts.
I have just heard your comment on the radio about the bombing of civilian sites in Iraq including a bomb shelter in which about 800 innocent people have died. You expressed your "dismay"! How compassionate of you while a member state of the United Nations is in the process of being totally destroyed and while a genocide is taking place under your eyes - a genocide which is in complete violation of another international agreement adopted by the United Nations : The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (annexed to General Assembly Resolution 260-A (III) of 9 December 1948) !
You apparently do not wish to serve another term and are looking forward to your retirement by the end of the year. Would you not Sir, render a great service to humanity by retiring from your present functions ten months earlier than originally foreseen?
Whatever you do, one thing is certain, nothing will ever be like before
the 17th of January 1991. A major victim after world peace and the population
of Iraq is the United Nations itself which has lost a great deal of its
credibility. You have accidentally entered into history as one of the protagonists
of the real First World War - a war between the North and the South. A
war of Western Cultural hegemonism against the diversity of values. A war
which will go on for at a least a generation and not only on the military
fields. You have thereby paved the way for the birth of a New World but
one quite different from the one envisaged by your patrons - the Permanent
Members of the Insecurity Council.
Yours sincerely,
Mahdi Elmandjra
Former Assistant Director General of UNESCO