IN the preamble to the charter of the United Nations, which has been amended from time to time, the main objectives are "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, to establish conditions under which justice and respect for treaties and international law can be maintained''. The solemn pledges made by the leaders from fifty countries of the world, including the United States, the Great Britain and Soviet Union, at the adoption of the charter in 1945 in San Francisco, appear to be hollow in the light of aggression launched by the United States and Great Britain without the mandate of the Security Council against Iraq. Having failed to secure approval of the Security Council to wage war the United States declared that with or without UN approval she had the rights to strike at Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein regime of weapons of mass destruction in spite of negative report by UN inspectors on WMD. The

war was launched without any threat or provocation from Iraqi regime towards the United States and Great Britain. The attitude shown by the United States is arrogant, which by implication means that United Nations has no relevance.

By adhering to the Charter, all member countries of the United Nations are committed to fulfil in good faith the 'obligations assumed by them in accordance with article 2 of the charter.' Article 2 further states that "all members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered; all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It appears that the United States has simply violated the charter by invading Iraq.

According to UN charter, a member country of UNO cannot attack any country except for selfdefence. In that case the affected country in the exercise of this right

of self-defence shall immediately report to the Security Council as per article 51. On the issue of Iraq it was the United States that launched attack against Iraq along with Great Britain. Iraq was not a threat nor it made any provocation against the United States. Therefore, breach of conditions as reflected in the charter is clear violation of the charter and international law. One is tempted to quote from chief prosecutor Justice Jackson of the United States Supreme Court at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. He said, "If certain acts and violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes, whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them." Justice Jackson said to initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crim, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the "accumulated evil of the whole."

Wanton destruction of infrastructures, houses, offices, market places, hospitals, killing of innocent men, women and children and raping of women constitute as crimes against humanity. During

the time of war invading forces should have avoided killing of civilian population as demanded under Geneva Convention. Apart from this, the wounded and sick persons shall be collected and cared for. Unfortunately, as the press reports indicate, the invading forces did not pay any attention to wounded civilian population, which is also violation of Geneva Convention. The looting of Iraq Museum in presence of American troops is the violation of the Hague Convention. Under this convention the invading forces should protect property. Iraq Museum was known as world's great collection of artefacts from early Mesopotamian civilisation.

Fundamental human rights, as accepted in international law and laid down in international instruments, continue to apply fully in situations of armed conflicts. It has been acknowledged internationally that war crimes and crimes against humanity cover a wide common area since the Nuremberg tribunal. Geneva convention, the Genocide convention and resolutions of 9 December 1970 adopted by the General As-

sembly of the United Nations are applicable in holding war crimes trial. Apart from these, another resolution 2712 (XXV) adopted on 15 December 1970 by the General Assembly of the United Nations is significant in respect of punishment to be meted out to persons, who have committed crimes against humanity. Since the invading forces have not only violated charter of the United Nations but also they have committed crimes against humanity in Iraq in violation of international law, the international community has the moral obligation that the persons responsible for terrible inhuman crimes committed in Iraq should be brought to justice. For the crimes committed during Second World War by Nazi regime in Germany they had to face trial and still continue to face.

Trial is an act of justice. Therefore, crimes committed by invading forces in Iraq should be tried. They should also be tried in International Criminal Court set up recently on the basis of Rome statute of 17 July 1998. The United States is one of the signatories but Bush administration in a letter to

the Secretary General is reported to have it distanced from ICC by refusing to ratify. It is regrettable that Bush administration continues to signal its opposition to the International Criminal Court and other important international treaties including Kyoto Convention on environment. On the other hand, Bush administration has succeeded in signing bilateral agreements with some countries to avoid ICC. According to international norm and practice, US cannot back out from its commitment to the establishment of ICC. The UNO may also consider setting up war crimes tribunal like war crimes tribunal on Yugoslavia.

Since small and Developing countries attach importance to the United Nations for multilateral diplomacy, efforts should be made by LDC group and Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to make UNO more effective international mechanism to solve conflicts around the globe and bring about peace and tranquillity. The United States in particular gave damn to the role of the United Nations violating the charter. In spite of the talks on involvement of the United Nations

in reconstruction of post war Iraq, the United States is more reticent about it. The image of the United Nations has been eroded because of the high handedness of the United States. The United States has become defaulter, as she has not been paying its share of 22 per cent to the budget of the UNO. Therefore, the United States in fact ceased to be a voting member because of the arrears in payment of its financial contribution to the organisation. Article 19 of the charter is relevant in this connection.

The United States has persistently violated the principles contained in the present charter. As per article 6 of the Charter the United States could be expelled from UNO on account of persistently violating principles of the charter and submitting false documents at the Security Council in December. A concerted effort should be made by LDCs and developing countries to convene a special General Assembly session to discuss the matter and take a decision to expel the USA from the world body for the greater interest of small states in particular and

survival of the world body in general.

Secondly, initiative should also come from NAM, OIC and other such groups to build up opinion for the shifting of the headquarters of UNO. To get rid of the dictatorial influence of the American administration it is recommended to move UNO headquarters to a neutral place like Switzerland.

The Secretary General should also be advised to review staffing pattern in the world body in line with section 3 of the article 101. America's contributions to the world body should be shared equally by all other member states of UNO in the event of departure of the United States from the world body for a certain period for the offence her highhandedness. This has become all the more necessary in view of the irrational and irresponsible behaviour of present American administration.

Esrajul Alam is a former diplomat.