Flyby News Home - Flyby News Archives - Casinni NoFlyby - Flyby Links

Flyby  News

"News Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era"

Unite for Peace * Lobby * Sharon/Bush * Warming Bill

12 February 2003

1) "Uniting for Peace"
2) Lobbying Congress for Peace
3) The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel?
4) Bipartisan Global Warming Bill Finally Arrives in Congress

Editor's Notes:

Top on the agenda of this issue is on efforts for stopping the US war on Iraq. Item one proposes a plan for the United Nations to "maintain international peace and security." In 1950 the United Nations, by an almost unanimous vote, adopted Resolution 377, named "Uniting for Peace." Please help the world realize this possibility for peace by engaging member states to adopt the French-German peace plan and take it to the General Assembly and Prevent the War!

Item 2 is less of a probability, but well worth trying, to get US Congress to review any plans before an attack on Iraq. Item 3 is an in depth essay on the united actions of the Sharon and Bush ruthless policies in the Middle East. Item 4 is on a new bill to lower global warming emissions by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Yet what is most important, even for preventing Global Warming, is to stop the US from attacking Iraq. As posted previously, a CBS TV evening news on 21 January 2003 reported:

"There are new signs that war could take an enormous economic toll. Military officials tell CBS News tonight they have a solid indication that Saddam plans to blow up Iraq's oil wells, if it appears certain that his regime will fall.

He did it in Kuwait at the end of the Gulf War. It took 9 months to put out the fires. Iraq has twice the number of wells –

The Gulf Region is still recovering from the environmental and economic affects of Saddam's scorch earth policy of 1991. Destroying the Iraqi oil wells now would send oil prices into the stratosphere and cripple the economic recovery here."

But the economy is not all that is threatened by war. Recently CBS news reported that Saddam has wired explosives to oil wells in Iraq.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

How the Coming War Stacks Up
Blood, Stats, and Tears
by Ward Harkavy
February 5 - 11, 2003
The Village Voice:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The Road Better Not Taken by Jack Beatty
A war against Iraq could be the most catastrophic blunder in U.S. history

Jack Beatty writing in Atlantic Unbound, the on-line supplement to the Atlantic Magazine, notes that "The imminent U.S. attack on Iraq will be the first war in our history in which success is as fearful a prospect as failure. When we "win," our troubles will just begin. How we win will determine their gravity.

For the complete text, see:

Public Demonstrations for PEACE * February 15 & 16
"The World Says No to War"
- for more information, see:

1) "Uniting for Peace"

If The Security Council Can't Get Vote For French-German Plan,
They Can Take It To The General Assembly and Prevent the War!

Dear Friends,

This week and the next are crucial weeks during which to prevent the war.

The German-French proposal may well be able to accomplish this, and with the presence in Iraq of a large number of inspectors (3 times as many as now under their plan) and a contingent (hopefully a large one) of United Nations Peacekeepers, the horrifying war plan of the Bush Administration, which includes possible use of nuclear bombs in the initial onslaught, may be prevented altogether.

Such a plan would of course be vetoed by the U.S. on the Security Council, which, as we know, only authorizes things with a unanimous vote. However, there is a loophole in the U.S. power to stop the French-German plan, which is substantiated in the article reprinted below. Under the "United For Peace" provision of the U.N. laws, Security Council members may take their proposal to the General Assembly for a vote. This is what I believe can and must happen this week. The French and the Germans have the right idea, as I'm sure we all agree. Basically they are attempting to do whatever they can to prevent the war. If the Bush Administration and whoever they have bought and coerced on the Security Council object, France, Germany, Russia and China and their other co-sponsors may go the General Assembly for a vote, and this will make it possible for U.N. Peacekeepers to depart for Iraq as soon as possible, hopefully within 24 to 48 hours. Once the peacekeepers are there, it will be almost impossible for the U.S. to bomb Iraq.

Let's circulate this proposal and discuss it with others, as well as telephone the French, German, Russian and Chinese, embassies to express our support for a "United For Peace Initiative to Resolve the Iraq Crisis". Following are the contact information for these four countries from the U.N. Website.

Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations
One Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza, 245 East 47th Street, 44th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10017, Telephone: (212) 308-5700
Telefax: (212) 421-6889
Correspondence: French

Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations
871 United Nations Plaza (First Ave., 48/49 St.), New York, N.Y. 10017-1814
Telephone: (212) 940-0400, Telefax: (212) 940-0402

Russian Federation
Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations
136 East 67th Street, New York, N.Y. 10021
Telephone: (212) 861-4900/4901/4902, Telefax: (212) 628-0252

Permanent Representative of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations
350 East 35th Street, New York, N.Y. 10016
Telephone: (212) 655-6100, Telefax: (212) 634-7626

Additional United Nations Security Council members' Email addresses:,,,,,,,,,,

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

A U.N. Alternative to War: "Uniting for Peace"

In the last few months, the Bush Administration has been unyielding in its march towards war, over the objections of some allies and despite the efforts of the United Nations. In response to France's threat that it would veto efforts by the United States to obtain a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, President Bush said the United States would lead a "coalition of the willing to disarm Saddam Hussein." Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that the United States and Britain reserved the right to use force against Iraq--- even if a Security Council member vetoed a resolution authorizing the use of force. It now seems obvious that the United States, with some other countries, may soon go to war despite a veto; or, alternatively, go to war without returning to the Security Council and risking a veto. But for people around the world terrified that a new war in Iraq is inevitable, there may yet be hope. And that hope lies in a little-discussed mechanism of the United Nations itself—which, although it seems marginalized by American power, has the potential to stop the war.

The Charter gives the Security Council "the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." But the Security Council is currently unable to carry out this responsibility in light of U.S. plans to attack Iraq. The Council is stymied: The United States may bypass the Council entirely. And, if the Council tries to obtain passage of a resolution prohibiting the United States from using unauthorized force against Iraq, the United States or Britain will surely veto it.

Long ago, the members of the United Nations recognized that such impasses would occur in the Security Council. They set up a procedure for insuring that such stalemates would not prevent the United Nations from carrying out its mission to "maintain international peace and security." In 1950, the United Nations by an almost unanimous vote adopted Resolution 377, the wonderfully named "Uniting for Peace." The United States played an important role in that resolutions adoption, concerned about the possibilities of vetoes by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Uniting for Peace provides that if, because of the lack of unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council (France, China, Russia, Britain, United States), the Council cannot maintain international peace where there is a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression," the General Assembly "shall consider the matter immediately…." The General Assembly can meet within 24 hours to consider such a matter, and can recommend collective measures to U.N. members including the use of armed forces to "maintain or restore international peace and security."

The Uniting for Peace resolution procedure has been used ten times since 1950. Its first use was by the United States. After Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956 Britain and France attacked and occupied parts of the canal. Cease-fire resolutions in the Security Council were quickly vetoed by Britain and France. The United States went to the General Assembly calling for a cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces. An emergency session was held under the "Uniting for Peace" resolution; the U.S. resolution and subsequently an even stronger resolution passed the General Assembly. In the face of these resolutions it took less then a week for Britain and France to withdraw.

Uniting for Peace was next used by the United States to pressure the Soviet Union to cease its intervention in Hungary in 1956. The Soviet Union had used its veto to prevent the passage of an anti-intervention resolution in the Security Council. Again, an emergency session of the General Assembly was held and the Soviet Union was ordered to stop its intervention in Hungary.

In the current impasse over Iraq in the Security Council, Uniting for Peace can and should be used. The General Assembly should consider taking action with regard to the threat to the peace posed by U.S. military action against Iraq taken without U.N. authority. It could require that no military action be taken against Iraq without the explicit authority of the Security Council. It could mandate that the inspection regime be permitted to complete its inspections. It seems unlikely that the United States and Britain would ignore such a measure. A vote by the majority of countries in the world, particularly if it were almost unanimous, would make the unilateral rush to war more difficult.

Uniting for Peace can be invoked either by seven members of the Security Council or by a majority of the members of the General Assembly. This gives those who oppose unilateral war a real opportunity for activism. People everywhere in the world can lobby their governments to bring on such a resolution. This effort can become a worldwide effort to, as the UN Charter so eloquently states, "save succeeding generations form the scourge of war."

Michael Ratner
President, Center for Constitutional Rights
212 243 3805

Jules Lobel
Professor, Univ. of Pittsburgh Law School
1 412 648 1375

2) Lobbying Congress for Peace

The Nation
[posted online on February 10, 2003]

Lobbying for Peace

All social movements need an "outside" strategy and an "inside" strategy. The growing number of people participating in rallies and marches in opposition to President George W. Bush's plans to invade Iraq is heartening. The participants in protest events have included large numbers of ordinary Americans with no experience as activists and no ideological ax to grind. They think
Bush's war plans are premature or reckless.

But most Americans who oppose Bush's war plans don't show up for these protests. Polls show that since last October, when--under the pressure of the November elections--Congress voted to give Bush the broad authority he asked for to use military force against Iraq, and to act alone if necessary, Americans have become more ambivalent, hesitant and skeptical about going to war with Iraq. In growing numbers, Americans now oppose giving a free hand to a President with an itchy trigger finger. Without an "inside" strategy that gives people more conventional ways to voice their dissent, however, the peace movement will appear smaller and more marginal than it really is.

The street protests, along with petitions, newspaper and TV ads, and bumper stickers, have forced Bush to proceed more slowly than he and his advisers had planned. But ultimately, only Congress can effectively stop the Bush Administration from waging war--directly, by tying Bush's hands, or indirectly, by reflecting the public's mounting aversion to war with Iraq. Antiwar forces have begun to acknowledge this reality by focusing attention on Congress's role and mobilizing support for resolutions to limit Bush's options.

"We have to put up as many obstacles as we can," explained Erik Leaver, a foreign policy expert at the Institute for Policy Studies. "We need to pressure members of Congress to come out against the war. Legislation gives the grassroots something to grasp onto."

The strategy seems to be having an effect. On January 24, as Bush was putting the finishing touches on his State of the Union speech, 129 Democratic members of the House of Representatives--more than a quarter of all members--sent him a letter asking him "to use the opportunity provided in the upcoming State of the Union Address to offer assurances both to the American people and the international community that the United States remains committed to the diplomatic approach and comprehensive inspections process agreed to in the UN Security Council."

The letter, written by Representatives Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Ron Kind of Wisconsin, called on Bush to "sufficiently weigh future decisions regarding Iraq on the assessment" given by the UN weapons inspectors, "including additional inspection time and resources as appropriate." Kind was among the twenty-six signers who had voted for the war resolution last October. These original signers changed their minds as a result of grassroots organizing and public opinion in their districts--an indication that the antiwar movement outside the Beltway is being felt inside it, even though only a few major newspapers published stories about the letter.

Since then, some members of Congress have taken the next step to reassert Congress's authority in the war-making process. Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and Representatives Pete DeFazio of Oregon and Ron Paul of Texas, have filed resolutions to limit Bush's room for maneuver. The Kennedy/Byrd resolution requires Bush to go back to Congress for approval before using military force in Iraq. The DeFazio/Paul bill--which was filed within hours of Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 4 speech to the UN and immediately drew thirty co-sponsors--repeals last October's use-of-force vote.

No one expects that all 133 House members and twenty-three senators who voted against the war resolution last October will immediately sign on to these bills. Too many of them--Democrats as well as Republicans--have been intimidated by the Bush Administration's willingness to challenge the patriotism of anyone who opposes its march to war. But the legislation provides the antiwar movement with an organizing tool to reach Americans with a simple message: Write your senator and representative to co-sponsor a resolution to limit Bush's recklessness in getting the country into a war most people don't want.

A piece of legislation makes the stakes clear and forces elected officials to answer the question: Which side are you on? It provides antiwar advocates involved with churches, labor unions and other groups an opportunity to get their organizations to support the bill, their leaders to speak out and their elected representatives to sign on. It provides local activists with a tool to lobby city councils to urge their congresspersons to co-sponsor the legislation. (As of February 5, at least sixty-six city councils in twenty-four states--as well as the Maine State Senate and the Hawaii House of Representatives--had passed antiwar resolutions.) Newspaper columnists and editorial writers will have to take sides.

As the antiwar movement builds momentum, each day the number of Congressional co-sponsors will grow. A steadily increasing groundswell of opposition might even give some of the Democratic Party's presidential hopefuls the backbone to speak out strongly and forcefully against Bush's plans for Iraq, even if they support some aspects of the war on terrorism or some of Bush's other foreign policy goals.

The initial leaders of today's antiwar movement were schooled in the politics of street protest. They skillfully used the Internet to mobilize large public demonstrations that attracted many middle-of-the-road Americans who view Bush's war plans as reckless. In growing numbers, people are adding their names (and contributions) to newspaper ads and petitions. A month ago these were primarily longtime peace activists and intellectuals, but as the national mood has turned more skeptical of Bush's plans, a broader range of people have been willing to put their names on these ads and petitions and join street protests.

Peace activists have also been behind other creative tactics, including last month's full-page letter in the Wall Street Journal, "A Republican Dissent on Iraq," supported by business executives, and the thirty-second soundbites starring actress Susan Sarandon and former US Ambassador to Iraq Ed Peck with the message: "Why rush into war? Let the inspections work," sponsored by, a group started by Ben & Jerry's founder Ben Cohen.

The protests, rallies and ads should continue, but their target and message should now be aimed not only at Bush but also at getting Congress to tie Bush's hands. Unless the antiwar movement can reach out beyond those willing to march in the streets, and provide people with more conventional ways to express their concern and outrage, it will fail to fulfill its potential to galvanize much of Middle America, which doesn't trust Bush's eagerness to put American soldiers and tax dollars in harm's way on behalf of his holy crusade.

This article can be found on the web at

3) The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel?

The following uses excerpts from the essay, "The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel" by Stephen J. Sniegowski. He notes that "Joshua Micah Marshall authored an article in The Washington Monthly titled: "Bomb Saddam?: How the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy. And in the leftist e- journal CounterPunch, Kathleen and Bill Christison wrote:

‘The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a Ha'aretz column that Perle, Feith, and their fellow strategists "are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests." The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten subject in the Israeli press, as it is in the United States. Peace activist Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that Sharon has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring the Middle East and that "the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him. But the style is the same."'

Thanks much to Vince for sending Stephen J. Sniegowski's comprehensive essay to Flyby News. It clearly shows the parallel interests of Bush and Sharon military and corporate actions. First "..the United States helped arm Iraq with the very weaponry of horror that administration officials are now trumpeting as justification for forcibly removing Saddam from power." This is crazy, and with knowledge of the recent posting by Victor Thorn's review of Michael Collins Piper's "Final Judgment," we have come to learn of the nuclear development program between these two countries and the possible collaboration in the political assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It's the ring, Frodo, nuclear power has driven them mad.

The following are the concluding paragraphs of
Stephen J. Sniegowski's essay:
"The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel"

".. The deductions drawn in this essay seem obvious but are rarely broached in public because Jewish power is a taboo subject. As the intrepid Joseph Sobran puts it: "It's permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits." [99]

So in a check for "hate" or "anti-Semitism," let's recapitulate the major points made in this essay. First, the initiation of a Middle East war to solve Israeli security problems has been a long-standing idea among Israeli rightist Likudniks. Next, Likudnik- oriented neoconservatives argued for American involvement in such a war prior to the atrocities of September 11, 2001. Since September 11, neocons have taken the lead in advocating such a war; and they hold influential foreign policy and national security positions in the Bush administration.

If Israel and Jews were not involved, there would be nothing extraordinary about my thesis. In the history of foreign policy, it has frequently been maintained that various leading figures were motivated by ties to business, an ideology, or a foreign country. In his Farewell Address, George Washington expressed the view that the greatest danger to American foreign relations would be the "passionate attachment" of influential Americans to a foreign power, which would orient U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of that power to the detriment of the United States. It is just such a situation that currently exists.

We can only look with trepidation to the near future, for in the ominous words of Robert Fisk, "There is a firestorm coming." [10]'

For a link to the complete essay:
"The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel"
by Stephen J. Sniegowski

4) Bipartisan Global Warming Bill Finally Arrives in Congress


The latest scientific reports indicate that global warming is a real problem being made worse by human activity. And the planet is already starting to show symptoms of trouble:

Scientists expect the planet's climate to warm as much as 10 degrees by the end of the century.

The journal Nature reports that rising temperatures are by now impacting some birds, plants, insects and other wildlife, and could push some species to extinction.


* Sets mandatory greenhouse gas pollution reduction targets.

All major sectors of the U.S. economy would limit greenhouse gas pollution to year 2000 levels by 2010, and year 1990 levels by 2016. The Bush Administration, in contrast, has only called for "voluntary" pollution reductions. Mandatory reductions are the only way to achieve meaningful greenhouse gas pollution reductions. Voluntary efforts have been tried for more than a decade, and we are losing ground.

* Makes the U.S. Economy More Energy Efficient.

Real greenhouse gas pollution cuts cannot be made without an effective plan for making the U.S. economy more energy efficient. This bill will prompt new investments in energy-efficient technologies and renewable energy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

* Uses free-market incentives to lower costs, protect economy and promote innovation.

The bill takes an approach first developed by Environmental Defense for the federal acid rain program enacted in 1990, which helped achieve larger acid rain reductions than actually required, and at a lower cost. By taking this same approach, the McCain-Lieberman bill would reduce greenhouse gas pollution while stimulating innovation and economic growth.

* Reduces greenhouse gas pollution from transportation.

Thirty percent of all GHG pollution in the U.S. comes from the transportation sector. This area will finally be required to reduce its contribution to global warming.

* Helps U.S. Uphold International Treaty Commitments.

The U.S. has disregarded its international global warming treaty obligations, angering many of our closest allies around the world. Support for the McCain-Lieberman bill will demonstrate America's commitment to this worldwide problem and help us improve relations with allies.

* Breaks logjam on U.S. inaction to fight global warming.

For years, the federal government has resisted taking real action to tackle global warming. The
McCain-Lieberman bill is the best chance for creating a legitimate U.S. climate policy.

Mandatory reduction targets combined with market mechanisms would not only ensure real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but would harness the vast ingenuity of the U.S. economy in finding the cheapest and most innovative ways of achieving those reductions.

For more information on the McCain-Lieberman global warming bill and Environmental Defense's efforts to fight global warming, visit.

Free Independent News

For Life's Survival in the 21st Century

Flyby News bumper stickers with above text are available for the

mainstream education drive

This way while driving you can point others to Flyby News' resources. If you wish, $5 for a bumper sticker will cover most costs, (or 3 stickers for $10), but I hope we can get some subsidized for anyone wanting to place them on their car's bumper or other public placement. The artwork and colors are beautiful by Liz Nicholas. If you want one, please write to and provide your snail mail address, and specify if you want the blue-green swirling background, or red-orange sunset horizon.

A "Fair Use Policy" that describes Flyby News' use of copyrighted material is posted at

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and not necessarily those of Flyby News.

Your feedback, networking Flyby News, and forwarding us articles of interest, are welcomed and appreciated. You can write to the publisher/editor Jonathan Mark


=====Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era====>

= = = = = = = = = = =

Email address: