|
|
 Re: لماذا العراق ؟ ستحارب الولايات المتحدة شاء الشعب العربي أم أبى (Re: ود شاموق)
|
اخي الحبيب المعذره ما تداخل في المواضيع لكن لتعم الفائده عن حرب العراق
الشحات
IRENE KHAN, Secretary General, Amnesty International
PAUL HOFFMAN, Chair, AI International Executive Committee
Dear Friends,
The international situation on Iraq presents us with some unprecedented challenges. We are confronted with the threat of military action that could have severe consequences for the civilian population. Moreover, for the first time in recent history, a major power is articulating a doctrine of preventive, possibly unilateral, recourse to military means to deal with alleged weapons threats, and to overthrow an existing government. While security and geopolitical arguments have featured prominently in support of the use of force, human rights considerations—including explicit references to Amnesty International’s work—have been advanced also by some governments to justify forceful action against Iraq. However, the mention of human rights in the debate has been selective and manipulative, and little or no attention appears to have been given to the human rights and humanitarian repercussions of military action.
More on this Web site:
Crisis in Iraq
In this context, Amnesty International needs to speak out, while respecting our existing policy of not taking a position on any actual decision to resort to military force, in order to ensure that the plight of the Iraqi population is taken fully into account. Broadly, we have stressed that those seeking a military solution ought to bear in mind that such a course of action would have a severe cost in terms of civilian casualties, and would add to the hardship of Iraqis already suffering at the hands of their government and from the impact of economic sanctions. In keeping with our existing policy, we are not saying that these concerns would definitely outweigh other legitimate concerns such as Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and alleged intention of using them further.
Given the inevitable human rights and humanitarian impact of any military action on the civilian population, Amnesty International’s credibility would be at stake around the world if we failed to encourage governments to take a preventive approach and examine other measures before using force. This is why we have stressed the well-established principle in the context of international conflict and reflected in the United Nations Charter, that force should be used only as a last resort. We took a similar line also in the case of the war in Afghanistan for very similar reasons. In that situation we did not pronounce ourselves on the ultimate decision to use force, and we would not do so now.
If military intervention occurs we will neither condone nor condemn the action and will not seek to pronounce whether or not it was a last resort. The U.N. Charter provides sufficient guidance to states as to the measures that they should pursue before resorting to the use of force, and it is up to the U.N. Security Council to judge whether that has been done. This is no different from the many situations where we ask governments to adhere to international principles or standards without actually pronouncing ourselves on how they should do so.
Taking a position that seeks to avoid further human suffering and human rights violations has greater merit at this point in time than remaining silent, which could be misinterpreted as condoning the use of force. With best wishes,
With best wishes,
Irene Khan
Secretary General, Amnesty International
Paul Hoffman
AI International Executive Committee, Chair
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست