Despite worldwide opposition to the war on Iraq, despite week after week of anti-war demonstrations in more than six hundred cities in North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, this sovereign state has now been invaded and occupied by the military forces of the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

This war is a direct violation of Article Two of the United Nations Charter item 3 which states that "all members shall settle international disputes by peaceful means, in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice are not endangered." Item 4 of the same article states that "all members shall refrain in their international relations from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

The military aggression against Iraq was carried out against the will of the majority of the members of the Security Council who expressed the desire to continue the inspections under the auspices of the United Nations until the "weapons of mass destruction" alleged to be in the possession of Iraq were detected or found not to exist. All along it was clear that this majority sought to solve the crisis which the United States made persistent efforts to inflame, not by having recourse to force but through peaceful diplomatic means.

The United States of America and the United Kingdom, by waging a unilateral war, refused to submit to the provisions of Chapter VII articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter which define the collective measures to be taken by the Security Council when "a threat to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression" by a country are perceived. In so doing they have placed themselves out of the bounds of the United Nations and at the least merit some form of condemnation from its member nations for this flagrant and criminal violation of international security and law.

The military campaign carried out by these two states against Iraq is an act of aggression for which they should be held accountable by the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations. It was launched while the inspection teams set up by the Security Council and operating under your auspices had decided that they required more time to discover whether "weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq or not." It has caused and will continue to cause untold suffering to the people of that country, hundreds of thousands of whom have died or are sick after the first Gulf War and twelve years of cruel sanctions. It constitutes an extremely dangerous threat to world peace by enforcing a unilateral policy of "preemptive strikes" adopted by the present administration of the United States under the Presidency of George W. Bush. Already warnings and menaces are being directed by this administration against other countries and in particular against the Arab Republic of Syria.

Yet the United Nations Organization, instead of attempting to resist these new dangers to world peace and security following immediately on first preemptive war has already busied itself with discussions on its role in "rebuilding Iraq." Once more it seems intent on covering up and legitimizing a United States theft of Iraqi resources and in particular oil. For oil seems to be the prize to which the big nations are turning their eyes now that the regime in Iraq has collapsed under an uncountable number of multi thousand pound missiles and bombs.

It is as though for the United Nations the invasion of that country should be considered a fait accompli and it is time to move over to more important matters, namely how the exploitation of its oil resources and the money from rebuilding what has been destroyed can be legitimized and shared by the permanent members of the Security Council.

Can we accept this U.S.A. practice of military invasion called "shock and awe"? It is the military equivalent of rape - to invade a sovereign body without permission and to destroy the victims ability to resist and then convince them by force that killing of them is the way to their liberation?

We do not want to say that one man is responsible for the action of the United Nations. The UN System itself needs to be changed, so that the majority of nations have veto power and not the five largest countries. We need to make the UN and the Security Council and other UN bodies more powerful and more effective.

Millions of women and men all over the world stood against the war, and will continue to protest against policies that jeopardize peace, security, and justice. They consider that, as the Secretary General of the United Nations, you have a special responsibility in ensuring that this international organization be utilized to ensure world peace rather than to cover up the invasion of sovereign countries by a neo-colonial superpower which uses its military might to further its interests in the world. They believe that your decision to withdraw the inspectors of UNSCOM and IAA as well as the inspectors posted on the borders between Iraq and Kuwait at the request of the United States of America and the United Kingdom was a refusal on your part to put up any resistance to the military attack against Iraq. Even if the inspectors had expressed their desire to leave, it would have been possible for you to call upon the services of volunteers to replace them. Many men and women suited to this work and attached to peace rather than war would certainly have responded to your call. This non-resistance to aggression is certainly not what the nations of the world expect from a person in your position.

In the light of all these considerations we demand that as Secretary General of the Organization of United Nations you take a firm stand:

1. To block any attempt by the United States of American and the United Kingdom to have any access to the 30 billion dollars accumulated from the sale of Iraqi oil. This money is controlled by the United Nations. It belongs to the Iraqi people and should not be handed over to government circles in the United States in the service of a handful of multi-national corporations, whose only desire is to exploit the resources of a people already exploited to the bone.
2. To ensure that the United States and the United Kingdom be made to pay reparations for the invasion and wanton destruction of Iraq and the massacre of its people, in the same way as Iraq was made to pay reparations for its invasion of Kuwait.
3. To insist on the immediate withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Iraq so that the people of that country may enjoy real freedom and be enabled to build the democratic society through their independent efforts. Democracy under foreign occupation is no more than a mockery.
4. To include in the agenda of the United Nations some form of moral and legal condemnation of the United States and the United Kingdom as two countries that have placed themselves outside the international community of nations.
5. To engage the machinery of The United Nations Organization in an initiative
to call the member states into permanent session under the provisions of General Assembly Resolution 377(v) Uniting for Peace.The aim of this session is to solve the dangerous international crisis resulting from the war on Iraq by :
(a)Withdrawing the armed forces of the United States of America and the United Kingdom and of any other country which may decide or has decided to send troops to that country.
(b)Condemning the policy of pre-emptive wars.
If you find yourself unable to fulfill these obligations, rather than go down in history as an accomplice of imperialist aggression, of criminal wars, rather than to find yourself accountable for the further evils being planned by the Bush administration we suggest that you tender your resignation.

On behalf of the delegation,
Nawal El Saadawi
10 April 2003