The Illegal War With Afghanistan

8/14/2019 The Illegal War With Afghanistan

1/46

The Illegal War in Afghanistan

The unlawful nature of military action

by HM Armed Forces in Afghanistan

2001 - 2009

by Chris Coverdale of Make Wars History

commissioned by John Tipple of Linn & Associates

for presentation to the military court at Bulford

in defence of L/Cpl Joe Glenton

October 2009


2/46

2

War between nations was renounced by the

signatories of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty. Thismeans that it has become throughout

practically the entire world an illegal thing.Hereafter, when nations engage in armed conflict, either one or both of them must betermed violators of this general treaty law....

We denounce them as law breakers."

Henry Stimson, USA Secretary of State 1932


3/46

3

CONTENTSPage

IntroductionThe Brief.

3 Summary of Findings.3 Author

3 The Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders4 The legal duty to disobey unlawful orders

4 Identifying a manifestly unlawful order 6 What is an unlawful order?

6 Examples of manifestlyunlawful orders 7 A soldiers duty todisobey unlawful orders 7 The Laws of War

8 All

war is illegal. 8Threatening or attacking a nation state is always illegal 9

The UN Security Council cannot authorise the use of armed force. 9 The only legitimate use of armed force is self defence

10 Pre-emptive attacks are prohibited10 Taking part in a war of aggression is a universal crime

11 Wilful killing is a war crime 12 Killing a person because of their nationality

is genocide 12 Deliberately destroying members of anational group is genocide 13 Leaders are responsible for the war crimes of subordinates 14 Aiding or abetting a war or the use of armed force is a crime 15 Every citizen has a legalduty to disobey illegal orders 15Unlawful superior orders 17

Prime Ministerial orders to attack Afghanistan [2001 2009] 17False justification for war 20

War Crimes 23A Crime Against Peace 23Genocide 24A Crime Against Humanity 24

War Crimes 25Conspiracy 26The Offences Against the Person Act 1861

27Proving intent 27

Conclusions 28Appendices 30

UN Charter Chapter VII 30UNSCR 1386 33UNSCR 1510 35


4/46

4

Tony Blairs Statement on military action in Afghanistan October 7 th 2001 37Gordon Browns speech on Afghanistan September 2009 39

Brief 1) I was asked to prepare a report on the legality of UK military action in Afghanistan to be

presented to the military tribunal at Bulford in defence of L/Cpl Glentons claim that he has alawful duty to disobey orders as the war with Afghanistan is unlawful.

Summary of findings2) Having researched the duty to disobey unlawful orders, the laws of war, the legality of HM

Governments orders relating to the war with Afghanistan and the legality of HM Armed Forcesactions in Afghanistan, I confirm that:

every member of HM Armed Forces has a legal duty to disobey unlawful orders; the conflict taking place in Afghanistan is manifestly unlawful; the claim by HM Government that the war with Afghanistan is authorised by the UN

Security Council is false; the orders by the CiC and the Chiefs of the Defence Staff to take part in the war with

Afghanistan are manifestly unlawful; the actions of individual members of HM Armed Forces in taking part in the wilful

killing of Afghan citizens constitute the criminal offences of genocide, crimes againsthumanity, war crimes, murder and a crime against peace;

every British citizen has a legal duty to disobey the orders of the UK Governmentwhilst it continues to violate the laws of war and commit war crimes.

Author This report has been written by Chris Coverdale, a behavioural scientist, governanceconsultant and peace campaigner with expertise in war law and the emerging science of memetics [cultural change].

Between 1969 and 1998 he worked as a consultant and company director in the management

of behaviour change, transforming individual, group and organizational behaviour. In 2002 hehelped to set up Legal Action Against War to use the justice system to halt Britishinvolvement in the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan and hold leaders to account for their war crimes. In 2008, having conducted extensive research into violations of the domestic andinternational laws of war, he founded Make Wars History , a voluntary organisation promotingnon-violent direct action to end and prevent war.

Papers- The Laws of War 2005 - The Iraq Conspiracy 2006 - Accounting for Genocide 2009

Contact: Tel 020 8540 2865 or by e-mail to [email protected]


5/46

5

The Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders

1) After the horrific consequences of two world wars the Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes Trialsmade it clear that every citizen and in particular every soldier has a legal duty to humanity toprevent governments from waging aggressive war and causing injury or death to innocentpeople.

The very essence of the [London] Charter is that individuals have international dutieswhich transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State.He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of theauthority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competenceunder international law

That a soldier was ordered to kill or torture in violation of the international law of war

has never been recognised as a defence to such acts of brutality, though, as the Charter here provides, the order may be urged in mitigation of the punishment. The true test,which is found in varying degrees in the criminal law of most nations, is not the existenceof the order, but whether moral choice was in fact possible

Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

2) That these international duties apply to every member of HM Armed Forces was confirmedwith the publication of The Manual of Military Law in 1955 which states:

If a person, who is bound to obey a duly constituted superior, receives from the superior an order to do some act or make some omission which is manifestly illegal, he is under a legal duty to refuse to carry out the order and if he does carry it out he will becriminally responsible for what he does in doing so

Manual of Military Law, Pt I, Chapter VI, Article 24

3) Article 24 of the Manual of Military Law makes it quite clear that members of the armedforces have a lawful duty to disobey orders from their superior officers if they believe that


6/46

6

those orders are unlawful. It also makes it quite clear that if they do carry out an unlawfulorder they will be held criminally responsible for the consequences of the order.

4) The publication of the Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict by the Ministry of Defence in 2004reconfirmed the principle and made it quite clear that the duty to disobey a manifestly unlawfulorder applies to all superior orders from wherever they originate.

16.47.3 Orders from a superior in this context include those of a government, a superior - military or civilian - or a national law or regulation. A serviceman is under a duty not to obey a manifestly unlawful order .

Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Chapter 16, Article 47

5) That a soldier can be held criminally responsible for his actions when following unlawful orderswas confirmed after the Vietnam war when the US Court of Military Appeals rejected the pleaof superior orders and confirmed the guilty verdict on Lt William Calley for his part in the MyLai massacre.

A determination that an order is illegal does not, of itself, assign criminal responsibility to the person following the order for acts done in compliance with it. Soldiers are taught to follow orders, and special attention is given to obedience of orders on the battlefield.Military effectiveness depends upon obedience to orders. On the other hand, theobedience of a soldier is not the obedience of an automaton. A soldier is a reasoning agent, obliged to respond, not as a machine, but as a person . The law takes thesefactors into account in assessing criminal responsibility for acts done in compliance withillegal orders. The acts of a subordinate done in compliance with an unlawful order given him by his

superior are excused and impose no criminal liability upon him unless the superior'sorder is one which a man of ordinary sense and understanding would, under thecircumstances, know to be unlawful, or if the order in question is actually known to theaccused to be unlawful. Whether Lieutenant Calley was the most ignorant person in the United States Army inVietnam, or the most intelligent, he must be presumed to know that he could not kill the

people involved here An order to kill infants and unarmed civilians who were sodemonstrably incapable of resistance to the armed might of a military force as werethose killed by Lieutenant Calley is, in my opinion, so palpably illegal that whatever conceptual difference there may be between a person of "commonest understanding" and a person of "common understanding," that difference could not have had any "impact on a court of lay members receiving the respective wordings in instructions," asappellate defense counsel contend.

United States Court of Military Appeals, December 21, 1973


7/46

7

Identifying a manifestly unlawful order

6) When receiving an order from an officer, a soldier, as a reasoning agent, is obliged to respondnot as a machine but as a person, as a human being. This means that instead of automatically responding to orders without thinking he must stop and think and use his

reasoning ability to deliberate on the issue and decide for himself whether or not the order islawful. In making high quality choices or decisions a soldier needs to undertake severaldistinct thought processes.

In the first place he needs to consider what an order entails, the actions and activities

that he will be involved in. Then he needs to consider the likely or expected outcome, the results or

consequences of the order. Then he needs to examine his conscience and establish whether or not the action he

is being asked to take or the consequence he is being asked to bring about is right or wrong and complies with his own moral values and standards.

If it does, he then needs to consider whether or not the order and its likelyconsequences complies with his own understanding of the law and whether it is or isnot a criminal offence.

If after thinking it through he is happy that his conscience is clear and that theconsequences of his actions will be lawful then he has a duty to follow the order.

If however his thought processes have thrown up moral or legal questions or concerns then he is obliged in law to raise his questions and concerns with hissuperior officers.

If a soldier believes that by following an order he will transgress his own moral code of conduct or international or domestic law then he has a lawful duty to disobey the order.

What is an unlawful order ?

1) An unlawful order is:

Any order which if followed will cause physical injury, mental harm or death. Any order which if followed will break the law. Any order which if followed will lead to the commission of a criminal offence. Any order to take part in an unlawful activity

Examples of manifestly unlawful orders


8/46

8

1) Any political, civil or military order to

Use high-explosive weapons against inhabited villages, towns and cities. Take any action that could cause injury or death to children or unarmed civilians. Take part in a war of aggression. Use armed force other than in defence of the nation. Take part in an armed attack in foreign territory. Take part in the invasion or occupation of an independent sovereign nation state. Kill an enemy combatant. Take any action that could result in the destruction of others property. Drop bombs or fire rockets or cruise missiles at enemy positions. Prepare or train to use nuclear weapons.

A Soldiers Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders

1) Ever since the end of the Second World War every citizen and every member of a military forcehas had an international legal duty to disobey superior orders when the orders they receivefrom their government or their political, civil and military leaders and officers are obviouslyunlawful. Unfortunately neither the British Government nor HM Armed Forces have made anyefforts to help soldiers, sailors and airmen to decide for themselves when an order is unlawful.On the contrary, members of the armed forces are taught to follow orders without questioningthem and in many cases they are punished if they dare to question an order. As a resultordinary human beings become brutalized to such an extent that they accept without questionthat killing men, women and even children in their thousands is all part of the job. This has tochange. All of us have a duty to mankind to take a stand and force our leaders andgovernments to stop the killing and adopt a peaceful approach to the resolution of difficulties.


9/46

9

The laws of war

The law of war is to be found not only in treaties, but in the customs and practices of states which gradually obtained universal recognition, and from the general principles of

justice applied by jurists and practiced by military courts.


All war is illegal.

2) War was outlawed in 1928 by the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-BriandPact]. Sixty three nations, including Britain, America and Afghanistan , ratified the Pactcondemning recourse to war and agreeing to settle all disputes peacefully. This treaty is stillin force.

ARTICLE I The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations withone another.

ARTICLE II The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact]

3) The Kellogg-Briand Pact formed the legal basis for the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials. Under its terms armed attacks on any independent nation state violate this binding treaty and render a nations political, civil and military leaders criminally liable for the same offence of wagingaggressive war for which Germanys leaders were convicted and hanged in 1946.

In the opinion of the Tribunal, those who wage aggressive war are doing that which isequally illegal, and of much greater moment than a breach of one of the rules of theHague Convention. In interpreting the words of the Pact, it must be remembered that international law is not the product of an international legislature, and that suchinternational agreements as the Pact have to deal with general principles of law, and not with administrative matters of procedure. After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national

policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war asan instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is


10/46

10

illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with itsinevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing.

The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive warsare charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences arenot confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war

of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.


Threatening or attacking a nation state is always illegal

4) The UN Charter is widely recognised as the worlds premier war law. When a nation statesigns and ratifies the UN Charter it makes a binding agreement never to threaten or attack

another member state and to settle all international disputes peacefully.

2.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such amanner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.

2.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of forceagainst the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The UN Security Council cannot authorise the use of armed force.

5) The UN Security Council is a peacekeeping body and it may never use armed force. Claimsby UK and US governments that the Security Council can authorise armed attacks on another state under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are false. Whatever peacekeeping measures theSecurity Council decides to implement they may not involve the use of armed force.

41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other

means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

42. Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 proveto be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may includedemonstrations, blockade and other operations by air, sea, or land forces.


11/46

11

6) The Security Council is a peacekeeping body committed to the non-violent resolution of conflicts and the preservation of human life. It may not under any circumstances plan or undertake any action that could result in injury or death to another human being.

The only legitimate use of armed force is self defence

7) The only occasion when a limited and proportional use of armed force is lawful occurs when anation is forced to defend itself from an armed attack. Under Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UNCharter, if a nation is attacked it may legitimately use armed force to defend itself, but it may doso only until the UN Security Council implements measures to resolve the conflict.

51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collectiveself-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until theSecurity Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and

security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect theauthority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary to maintain or restore international peaceand security.

8) Under the UN Charter the only people authorised to use armed force in the Afghan conflict arethe people of Afghanistan. Under Article 51 they have the right to defend themselves fromunlawful attacks by ISAF forces and if they notify the UN Security Council of the attacks theycan use armed force until the UN Security Council implements peacekeeping measures.

9) Every one of the suggested measures for the resolution of conflicts listed in Articles 41 and 42of the UN Charter is non-violent and although the measures may involve the use of air, sea or land forces [blue beret troops] they may NOT involve the use of armed force.

Pre-emptive attacks are prohibited

10) All pre-emptive attacks were outlawed 150 years ago as a result of Britains underhand pre-emptive attack on an American vessel The Caroline at Niagara.

Taking part in a war of aggression is a universal crime


12/46

12

11) The seven international war laws known as the Nuremburg Principles, derived from theNuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals by the International Law Commission, wereadopted as universal statute war law by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950.

I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law isresponsible therefor and liable to punishment.

II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes acrime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act fromresponsibility.

III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility.

IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or a superior doesnot relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choicewas in fact possible to him.

V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial onthe facts and law.

VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war

of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for theaccomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but arenot limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other

purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation

not justified by military necessity.Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportationand other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on

political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crimeagainst peace or any war crime.

VII . Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crimeagainst humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

12) Since 1950 when the Nuremburg Principles were agreed by the United Nations GeneralAssembly, the supreme governing body of the UN, it is not only unlawful to take part in a

war of aggression but it is a criminal offence of a crime against peace.

Wilful killing is a war crime


13/46

13

13) Whether in a time of war or peace it is never lawful, legal or right to kill another human being.The wilful killing of nationals [combatants or civilians] of another state is never lawful and is acrime. The first and foremost war crime specified in the Geneva Conventions, the RomeStatute of the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Court Act 2001 iswilful killing.

For the purposes of this Statute war crimes means:

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of thefollowing acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of therelevant Geneva Convention: (i) Wilful killing; (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment,including biological experiments; (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; (iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not

justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

14) In addition to the prohibitions on wilful killing the UK Human Rights Act specifies:

Everyones right to life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his lifeintentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of acrime for which this penalty is provided in law.

15) It is never lawful for a serviceman to wilfully [deliberately] kill an enemy. Whenever a persondies as a result of an act of aggression those responsible for giving, transmitting or executingthe orders that caused the death commit a crime and become criminally liable for murder.

Killing a person because of their nationality is genocide

16) Setting out to kill a person because of their nationality, race, religion or ethnicity is a crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention 1 , the Rome Statute and the International CriminalCourt Act 2001.

For the purpose of this Statute, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, assuch: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm tomembers of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

17) The widely held assumption that it is lawful to kill an enemy during times of war is incorrect. Itmust be stressed that it is always a crime to wilfully kill or deliberately cause the death of a person even if they are described by our political leaders as the enemy. The Rome Statuteof the International Criminal Court was enacted with the specific purpose of preventing Headsof State, Governments, Parliaments and political leaders from waging wars and killing humanbeings because of who they are, because of their nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. Killing

1 In the USA The Genocide Convention Implementation Act 1988 [known as The Proxmire Act] applies


14/46

14

a person as part of a state policy [war] because they happen to be Iraqi, Afghani, Hutu, Tutsi,Palestinian, Israeli, British or American is an act of genocide.

Deliberately destroying members of a national group is genocide

18) When George Bush and Tony Blair launched the shock and awe attack on Iraq in 2003 usingmissiles and rockets to attack targets in Baghdad, they knew that innocent Iraqis would bekilled. By intentionally choosing and following a course of action that they knew would destroymembers of a national group for no other reason than their membership of that national groupthey committed an act of genocide. The only reason that the victims died was that they wereliving or present in the area under attack. None of them had done anything to warrant beingattacked and all of them had the right to expect that the Governments and people of developednations would abide by their solemn and binding agreements never to wage war or attackanother nation state.

19) It is not only Heads of State who are criminally liable for the crime of genocide when launchingan armed attack on another state, but every person involved with the attack. In law under Article 25 of the Rome Statute every resident of every State which takes part in an armedinvasion or occupation in which citizens of the nation under attack are injured or killed iscriminally liable for the consequences and can be charged with genocide, conduct ancillary togenocide, accessory to genocide or conspiracy to commit genocide.

Rome Statute - Individual criminal responsibility

Article 25

3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime 2 within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:

(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or throughanother person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;

(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;

(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;

(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such acrime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall beintentional and shall either:

(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of thegroup, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the

jurisdiction of the Court; or

2 Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes.


15/46

15

(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;

(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide;

(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstancesindependent of the person's intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort tocommit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liablefor punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that personcompletely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.

Leaders are responsible for the war crimes of their subordinates

The principle of international law, which under certain circumstances protects therepresentatives of a state, cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal by international law. The authors of these facts cannot shelter themselves behind their official position in order to be freed from punishment in appropriate proceedings.

Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal

20) Article 27 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court makes it clear that no matter who launches the rockets, fires the cruise missiles, drops the cluster bombs or deploysdepleted uranium shells, responsibility for the resulting deaths, injuries and destruction lies withthe political, civil or military leaders who ordered the attack.

27. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based onofficial capacity. In particular, official capacity as Head of State or Government, amember of a Government or Parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute,nor shall it in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

21) The British legislation makes it quite clear that it is a nations political, civil and military leaderswho are primarily responsible for the criminal offences associated with a war of aggression.

65. A military commander, or a person effectively acting as a military commander, is

responsible for offences committed by forces under his effective command and control or his effective authority and control A person responsible under this section for anoffence is regarded as aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of theoffence.

International Criminal Court Act 2001

22) It is a common error in Britain to believe that the law is different or not applicable in times of war. This is not the case. That a nation is at war provides no legal protection, excuse or defence to these crimes. Since September 2001, when the International Criminal Court Actwas enacted, if one or more persons is injured or killed through the deliberate action of Britains


16/46

16

military forces against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, then a crime of genocide hasbeen committed and those responsible for it are criminally liable and may be indicted and triedfor the offence. So for example, if an RAF officer under orders fires a rocket or drops a bombthat causes death or injury to men, women and children, then he or she together with thepolitical, civil and military commanders who commissioned the bombing can be charged with awar crime. If any member of HM armed forces intentionally kills or injures one or more persons

who are members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as part of a widespread or systematic attack on that group, then both the individual killer and all those in the chain of command responsible for giving the orders to use armed force are criminally responsible for thecrimes of genocide or conduct ancillary to genocide under Sections 51 and 52 of theInternational Criminal Court Act 2001.

Aiding or abetting warfare or the use of armed force is a crime

23) Whenever a government embarks on illegal warfare, citizens and particularly members of the

armed forces, arms manufacturers, suppliers and taxpayers become criminally liable for complicity in the crimes of their government and subject to the sanctions of domestic andinternational law. Actions such as fighting, supplying weapons, paying tax, voting inParliament, speaking or writing in favor of a war of aggression are all criminal offences.

Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence,whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be

passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.

Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

Every citizen has a legal duty to disobey illegal orders

24) Article 24 Chapter VI of the Manual of Military Law applies to every British citizen and taxpayer as well as to servicemen and women. This means that if a government embarks on an illegalwar everyone is duty bound to refuse all government orders associated with the war.Servicemen and women must refuse active service orders, armament suppliers must refuse tosupply weapons and taxpayers must withhold taxes.

24. If a person who is bound to obey a duly constituted superior receives from the

superior an order to do some act or make some omission which is manifestly illegal, heis under a legal duty to refuse to carry out the order and if he does carry it out he will becriminally responsible for what he does in doing so.

25) Anyone who co-operates with a government that wages a war of aggression is complicit in acrime against peace and is criminally liable as an accessory to war crimes. As the judges atNuremburg explained when convicting Germanys leaders for breaches of the laws of war:

The very essence of the [London] Charter is that individuals have international dutieswhich transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State.


17/46

17

He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of theauthority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competenceunder international law

Unlawful superior orders


18/46

18

Prime Ministerial orders to attack Afghanistan [2001 2009]

26) On October 7 th 2001 the Prime Minister, Tony Blair announced 3 to the nation that Britainsarmed forces were operating in Afghanistan. He made the following statements:

As you will know from the announcement by President Bush military action against targets inside Afghanistan has begun . I can confirm that UK forces are engaged inthis action

No country lightly commits forces to military action and the inevitable risks involved but we made it clear following the attacks upon the United States on September 11 th that wewould take part in action once it was clear who was responsible. There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the mind of anyone who has been through all the available evidence,including intelligence material, that these attacks were carried out by the al-Qaedanetwork masterminded by Osama bin Laden. Equally it is clear that his network isharboured and supported by the Taliban regime inside Afghanistan.

It is now almost a month since the atrocity occurred, it is more than two weeks since anultimatum was delivered to the Taliban to yield up the terrorists or face theconsequences . It is clear beyond doubt that they will not do this. They were given thechoice of siding with justice or siding with terror and they chose to side with terror.

The military action we are taking will be targeted against places we know to beinvolved in the operation of terror or against the military apparatus of the Taliban .This military plan has been put together mindful of our determination to do all wehumanly can to avoid civilian casualties .

We have set the objectives to eradicate Osama bin Ladens network of terror and to take action against the Taliban regime that is sponsoring it . As to the preciseBritish involvement I can confirm that last Wednesday the US Government made aspecific request that a number of UK military assets be used in the operation whichhas now begun . And I gave authority for these assets to be deployed. They include the base at Diego Garcia, reconnaissance and flight support aircraft and missile firing submarines. Missile firing submarines are in use tonight. The air assets will be available for use in the coming days .

People are bound to be concerned about what the terrorists may seek to do inresponse. I should say there is at present no specific credible threat to the UK that we know of and that we have in place tried and tested contingency plans which are thebest possible response to any further attempts at terror.

This, of course, is a moment of the utmost gravity for the world. None of the leadersinvolved in this action want war. None of our nations want it. We are a peaceful people.

3 The complete statement is attached as Appendix 1


19/46

19

But we know that sometimes to safeguard peace we have to fight . Britain has learnt that lesson many times in our history. We only do it if the cause is just but this causeis just . The murder of almost seven thousand innocent people in America was an attack on our freedom, our way of life, an attack on civilised values the world over. We waited so that those responsible could be yielded up by those shielding them. That offer wasrefused. We have now no choice so we will act and our determination in acting is total.

We will not let up or rest until our objectives are met in full.

Prime Minister Tony Blair 7/10/2001

27) Eight years later on September 4 th 2009 Prime Minister, Gordon Brown made a statement 4 onthe UK Governments strategy in Afghanistan which included the following points.

Our aim in 2009 is the same as in 2001. We are in Afghanistan as a result of ahard-headed assessment of the terrorist threat facing Britain.

It is right that eight years ago Britain with America and our allies, on behalf of the international community as a whole, helped to remove from Afghanistan aregime which enabled Al Qaeda to plot terror around the world , and whichculminated in the attacks on September 11 th, not just on America, but of course attackson the freedoms and values of us all.

But we knew that as we removed the Taleban from power and drove Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, so Al Qaeda would relocate and they did so, on the remote mountains of Pakistan. A new crucible of terrorism has therefore emerged. The Director-General of our security services has said that three quarters of the most serious plots against theUK have had links that reach back into these mountains. At present the threat mainly

comes from the Pakistan side, but if the insurgency succeeds in Afghanistan, Al Qaedaand other terrorist groups will once again be able to use it as a sanctuary to train, planand launch attacks on Britain and the rest of the world.

The advice I receive from the security agencies is clear. The sustained pressure on Al Qaeda in Pakistan combined with military action in Afghanistan is having a suppressiveeffect on Al Qaedas ability to operate effectively in the region but despite thesedifficulties, the main element of the threat to the UK continues to emanate from Al Qaeda and Pakistan.

In Afghanistan, the Afghan army and police are not yet ready to take on the Taleban purely by themselves. That is why the international coalition must maintain its military presence we will have succeeded when our troops are coming home because the Afghans are doing the job themselves. From that day on we will be able to focus our efforts on supporting the elected government on security and on development and onhuman rights. The right strategy is one that completes this job, which is to enable the

Afghans to take over from international forces and to continue the essential work of denying the territory of Afghanistan as a base for terrorists.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown 4/9/2009

4 The full text of the statement is attached as Appendix 2 to this report


20/46

20

28) A recent letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Bill Rammell attempts to justify Britains occupation of Afghanistan on the grounds that it is authorised by the UNSecurity Council.

I can only reiterate here that the UK is in Afghanistan at the invitation of thedemocratically elected government of that country, operating along with the other

partner nations under United Nations Security Council Resolution Nos 1386 (2001)and 1510 (2003). The UN authorisation was most recently extended in UNHCR 5 No1833 (2008).

Letter from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office 17/6/09

False justification for war

5 Presumably this should read UNSCR as the UNHCR [UN High Commission on refugees] cannotauthorise action.


21/46

21

29) When Tony Blair committed Britains armed forces to the conflict in Afghanistan he did so atthe request of George Bush. It was NOT at the request of the Afghan Government or the UNSecurity Council.

30) When giving the reasons for the war he explained that we were attacking Afghanistan with thestated purposes to eradicate Osama bin Ladens network of terror and to take action against the Taliban regime that is sponsoring it . These two objectives have nothing whatsoever to dowith defending Britain from an armed attack [the only basis on which the Prime Minister isauthorised to order the use of armed force]. This armed attack on the men, women andchildren of Afghanistan, none of whom had had anything to do with the attack on the twintowers, was a blatant violation of international treaties and the laws of war.

31) At no stage did Tony Blair claim that Britain had been attacked by Afghanistan and was actingin self-defence [the only lawful justification for the use of armed force]. On the contrary hemade the specific point that

there is at present no specific credible threat to the UK that we know of

Compare this with the statement made by Gordon Brown eight years later in September 2009 when he attempted to justify Britains illegal presence in Afghanistan.

Our aim in 2009 is the same as in 2001. We are in Afghanistan as a result of ahard-headed assessment of the terrorist threat facing Britain.

32) This claim that our aim in 2009 is the same as in 2001 is false and is a blatant example of the

lies and propaganda that the UK and US Governments use to deceive the armed forces and

the public into believing that the war with Afghanistan is lawful.

33) Gordon Brown contradicts himself when he states , the main element of the threat to the UK continues to emanate from Al Qaeda and Pakistan. If this is the case then why are wefighting in Afghanistan killing innocent Afghani citizens when the threat comes from Pakistan?It is never lawful to attack another nation on the grounds of a potential threat from a group of its citizens. If it was possible to justify the war on the grounds of preventing the terroristthreat, which it isnt, then logically we should be attacking Pakistan not Afghanistan.

34) The argument that Britain is in Afghanistan at the invitation of the democratically electedgovernment of that country operating under UNSC resolutions 1386 and 1510 is false and

misleading. Tony Blair announced that British forces attacked Afghanistan at the request of President Bush not at the invitation of the democratically elected government of that country .

35) British and American forces began bombing Afghan cities and killing innocent men, womenand children on October 7 th 2001 more than ten weeks before resolution 1386 was put beforethe UN Security Council on December 20th. To claim that Britains forces were in Afghanistanauthorised by UN Security Council resolution 1386 is palpably false.


22/46

22

36) The Security Council is a peacekeeping operation governed by Articles 39 to 51 [Chapter VII]of the UN Charter. Article 41 restricts the Security Council to using measures not involving theuse of armed force . For Bill Rammell and the FCO to claim that the use of armed force inAfghanistan is authorised by the UN Security Council under UNSC resolutions 1386 and 1510 6 is false and misleading. Neither resolution 1386 nor resolution 1510 could or did authoriseBritains presence in Afghanistan and neither resolution authorises the use of armed force.

37) UN Security Council resolutions are not international law. They are the non-violent operationaldecisions of the Security Council and they do not and cannot apply to the armed forces of Member States acting independently of the Security Council. They apply solely to [blue beret]peacekeeping forces operating under the auspices and command of the Security Council andthey cannot authorise independent action by UK or US forces.

38) The statement by Tony Blair that this military plan has been put together mindful of our determination to do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties is false and thoroughlymisleading. The military plan to open hostilities against Afghanistan by using high explosiveweapons such as cruise missiles, rockets and bombs on Kabul and other villages and townswas designed to cause maximum civilian casualties. With several hundred non-violent lawfulcivil and military options open to Tony Blair and George Bush to arrest and punish theperpetrators of the 911 atrocity, the indiscriminate bombing of the capital city of Kabul was thesingle choice short of using nuclear weapons that was most likely to cause civilian casualties.

39) NATO [The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation] was set up in 1949 to provide mutual defenceagainst the potential threat of the Soviet Union. It was never meant, and has certainly never been authorised to wage aggressive war. To use its massive resources for armed attacks onone of the worlds poorest countries, injuring, maiming and killing hundreds of totally innocentmen, women and children is a gross violation of international law and an atrocity.

40) The truth of the matter is that there is not now and has never been any lawful reason for attacking Afghanistan. It was an ill considered unlawful retaliatory attack on totally innocentpeople in one of the poorest most undeveloped countries in the world. Not one of the victimshad attacked Britain or British interests; not one was allowed to plead for their lives in courtand not one was shown any mercy before they were massacred in a show of military might bythe British and American Governments.

41) The only legitimate lawful use of armed force in international affairs occurs under Article 51,Chapter VII of the UN Charter when a nation state has suffered an attack from another nationstate and it responds to that armed attack with a proportionate use of armed force. Not only

is there no evidence of an attack by the Afghan Government on either Britain or America, butthere is no evidence whatsoever that the attack on the twin towers on Sept 11 th was ordered or even instigated by the Afghan Government.

6 For the full text of Resolutions 1386 and 1510 see Appendices Nos. 2 and 3


23/46

23

War Crimes


24/46

24

42) In attacking Afghanistan British, American and ISAF forces violated international treaties andthe laws of war and in doing so British and American citizens committed many of the mostserious crimes associated with warfare and armed conflict. They committed:-

A Crime Against Peace

Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii)Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the actsmentioned under (i).

Article VI, The Nuremburg Principles1950

43) The orders in October 2001 from George Bush and Tony Blair to attack, invade and occupyAfghanistan using high-explosive weapons to bomb Kabul and other undefended Afghan citieskilling and injuring hundreds of innocent men, women and children violated the laws of war.These actions constitute a crime against peace under Article VI of the Nuremburg Principlesand all those involved in planning, preparing, initiating or waging this war of aggression inviolation of the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War are complicit in the crime and canbe charged with a crime against peace or complicity in a crime against peace. Offendersinclude Heads of State, Government Ministers, Members of Congress and both Houses of Parliament, civil servants, members of the Armed Forces, law enforcement officers andtaxpayers all of whom are criminally liable for the resulting deaths and injuries.

Genocide

For the purposes of this Statute Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, assuch: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to membersof the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent

births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

44) The number of Afghan civilians [men women and children] known to have been killed as adirect result of this war is between 12,460 and 32,057. With the number of insurgents killedestimated at 22,500, the total number of violent deaths of Afghan citizens caused by ISAFforces is at least 35,000. Intentionally killing 35,000 people all of whom are members of theAfghan national group is an act of genocide under section 51 of the International CriminalCourt Act 2001 and Article 25 of the Rome Statute as well as a crime of genocide in the USAunder the Proxmire Act 1988. All of those who have taken a direct part in the killing are


25/46

25

criminally liable for the deaths and can be charged with genocide, whilst all those who havehad an indirect part in the crime are also criminally liable for the deaths and can be chargedwith conduct ancillary to genocide under section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act.

Crimes against HumanityFor the purposes of this Statute Crime against humanity means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population with knowledge of the attack: murder; extermination; enslavement;deportation or forcible transfer of population; imprisonment or other severe deprivation of

physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other formof sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in

paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime

within the jurisdiction of the Court; enforced disappearance of persons; the crime of apartheid; other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

45) Bombing Kabul and other towns and villages using indiscriminate weapons of massdestruction such as cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs, mortars and depleted uraniumartillery shells in the knowledge that anyone in the vicinity would be injured or killed constitutesa crime against humanity under section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 andarticle 25 of the Rome Statute. Every planned attack in which civilians are killed and whichhas taken place as part of the war in Afghanistan constitutes a crime against humanity andrenders all those involved in conducting or aiding and abetting the attack criminally liable for the consequences.

War Crimes

For the purposes of this Statute war crimes means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of thefollowing acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: (i) Wilful killing; (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or

health; (iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; (v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; (vi) Wilfully depriving a

prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; (vii)Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; (viii) Taking of hostages.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of thefollowing acts: (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or


26/46

26

against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; (iii)Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehiclesinvolved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with theCharter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given tocivilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; (iv) Intentionally

launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severedamage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to theconcrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; (v) Attacking or bombarding,by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives; (vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, or of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury; (viii) The transfer,directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population intothe territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; (ix) Intentionally directing attacksagainst buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes,historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,

provided they are not military objectives; (x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the personconcerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons; (xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; (xii) Declaring that no quarter will be

given; (xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemys property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; (xiv) Declaring abolished,suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of thehostile party; (xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in theoperations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in thebelligerents service before the commencement of the war; (xvi) Pillaging a town or

place, even when taken by assault; (xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons; (xviii)Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materialsor devices; (xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body,such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions; ....... (xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced

prostitution, forced pregnancy as defined in article 7, paragraph 2(f), enforced sterilisation, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of theGeneva Conventions; (xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected personto render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations; (xxiv)Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport,and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law; (xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully


27/46


28/46

28

48) Individuals will undoubtedly attempt to argue that they had nothing to do with the war and thecrimes committed by Britains armed forces. However since the end of WWII this argument willnot wash with the courts. Wars cannot take place without the willing consent and support of amajority of a nations population. Citizens may say that they did not intend to commit a crime,but as the meaning of intent is defined in the legislation they will find it hard to argue that theydid not know that the British government was fighting a war or that they were not aware that

anyone might be killed.

(a) a person has intent:-(i) in relation to conduct, where he means to engage in the conduct, and (ii) in relation to a consequence, where he means to cause the consequence or

is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events; and (b) knowledge means awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will

occur in the ordinary course of events.

49) That the perpetrators intended to destroy part of a national group as such is proven by their choice of tactics and their use of high-explosive weapons. The deliberate choice to use cruisemissiles, rockets and bombs on cities such as Kabul demonstrates the intent to destroyAfghan nationals. They knew that innocent people would be killed. After the first attacks theyknew that innocent people had been killed and yet knowing this they chose to repeat the tacticover and over again. This deliberate planned repetition of a criminal act will demonstrate toeven the most biased court that George Bush, Tony Blair, Barack Obama and Gordon Brownas well as all the civil political and military leaders involved in these atrocities intended todestroy part of the Afghan national group and by doing so committed the worst crime known tomankind.

Conclusions50) Having researched the duty to disobey unlawful orders, the laws of war, the legality of HM

Governments orders relating to the war with Afghanistan and the legality of HM ArmedForces actions in Afghanistan, I confirm that:-


29/46

29

51) There is widespread ignorance amongst British citizens of international treaties and the lawsof war. With very little knowledge or understanding of domestic and international war law itis no surprise that no more than a small minority of citizens know of the existence of TheGeneral Treaty for the Renunciation of War, understand the implications of the NuremburgWar Crimes Trials or have heard of the Nuremburg Principles and the Rome Statute. It is

less understandable why so few servicemen and women know of their duty to disobeyunlawful orders as it has been included in military law manuals for more than fifty years.

52) It is quite clear from the research included in the first part of this report that every member of HM Armed Forces has a legal duty to disobey an unlawful order, that few if any of themknow of this duty and none of them is able to recognise when they have been givenunlawful political orders associated with war and the use of armed conflict.

53) It is also quite clear that the Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict issued by the Ministryof Defence in 2004 is faulty and gives a misleading account of the laws governing therelationships between nations. This has led to Ministers of State, Parliamentarians,members of the armed forces and law enforcement officers having a partial and incompleteknowledge and understanding of the laws of war. This state of ignorance causes people toassume that Governments know what they are doing, and leads them to obey ordersdespite their misgivings. This obedience syndrome is so powerful that it leads soldiers andothers to ignore their personal moral values and standards and willingly take part in suchheinous acts as the waging of war and the mass murder of women and children.

54) An analysis of the political orders from the British Government relating to the war withAfghanistan indicates quite clearly that it is unlawful on every count. There is not now andnever has been a lawful reason for attacking Afghanistan and murdering its people. It isclear that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are following instructions from George Bush andBarack Obama to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan and have put out false and misleadingpropaganda to persuade HM Armed Forces and the public that the war and the fighting islawful and is authorised by the UN Security Council.

55) There is no getting away from the facts that all war is illegal, the UN Security Council cannever authorise the use of armed force and that the only time when the use of armed forceis lawful is in defence of a nation suffering an armed attack.

56) For these reasons all the orders emanating from the Chiefs of the Defence Staff relating tothe war with Afghanistan are unlawful and must be disobeyed.

57) The effect of following unlawful orders is that every action that leads to harm being done toan innocent person is a crime in both domestic and international law, and renders all thoseinvolved criminally liable for the consequences. This means that every former and currentmember of the Armed Forces who has served or is serving in Afghanistan has committed acrime against peace, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In order to endthis atrocity it is the duty of every serving member of the Armed Forces to report these factsto their superior officers at once and refuse to follow all unlawful orders.


30/46

30

58) The duty to rebel and refuse unlawful orders is not confined to HM armed forces. Everycitizen of Britain and every nation state involved in the war with Afghanistan has a duty ininternational law to refuse to obey the orders of their Government as the actions of ISAFforces in Afghanistan are unlawful and in breach of international war law.

Chris Coverdale The Campaign to Make Wars History September 2009

APPENDIX 1

UN Charter Chapter VII - Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the

Peace and Acts of AggressionArticle 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of thepeace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shallbe taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace andsecurity.

Article 40In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before makingthe recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon theparties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure tocomply with such provisional measures.

Article 41


31/46

31

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are tobe employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the UnitedNations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would beinadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or landforces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Suchaction may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forcesof Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on itscall and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance,and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining

international peace and security.2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degreeof readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to beprovided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification bythe signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44

When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not

represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of theSecurity Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall holdimmediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcementaction. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the MilitaryStaff Committee.

Article 46Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with theassistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the SecurityCouncil on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for themaintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forcesplaced at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.


32/46

32

2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent membersof the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations notpermanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to beassociated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires theparticipation of that Member in its work.

3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for thestrategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council.Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenanceof international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly andthrough their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying outthe measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50

If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council,any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confrontedwith special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall havethe right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the SecurityCouncil has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediatelyreported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibilityof the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deemsnecessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


33/46

33

APPENDIX 2UNSC 1386

Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 4443rd meeting, on 20 December 2001

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1378 (2001) of 14 November 2001 and 1383 (2001) of 6 December 2001,

Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism, in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations,and reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28September 2001,

Welcoming developments in Afghanistan that will allow for all Afghans to enjoy inalienable rights andfreedom unfettered by oppression and terror,

Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout the countryresides with the Afghan themselves,

Reiterating its endorsement of the Agreement on provisional arrangements in Afghanistan pending there-establishment of permanent government institutions, signed in Bonn on 5 December 2001(S/2001/1154) (the Bonn Agreement),

Taking note of the request to the Security Council in Annex 1, paragraph 3, to the Bonn Agreement toconsider authorizing the early deployment to Afghanistan of an international security force, as well asthe briefing on 14 December 2001 by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on his

contacts with the Afghan authorities in which they welcome the deployment to Afghanistan of a United Nations authorized international security force,

Taking note of the letter dated 19 December 2001 from Dr. Abdullah Abdullah to the President of theSecurity Council (S/2001/1223),

Welcoming the letter from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Secretary-General of 19 December 2001(S/2001/1217), and taking note of the United Kingdom offer contained therein to take the lead inorganizing and commanding an International Security Assistance Force,

Stressing that all Afghan forces must adhere strictly to their obligations under human rights law,including respect for the rights of women, and under international humanitarian law,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and nationalunity of Afghanistan,

Determining that the situation in Afghanistan still constitutes a threat to international peace andsecurity,

Determined to ensure the full implementation of the mandate of the International Security AssistanceForce, in consultation with the Afghan Interim Authority established by the Bonn Agreement,

Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,


34/46

34

1. Authorizes , as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of anInternational Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the

personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;

2. Calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to theInternational Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member States to inform the leadership of

the Force and the Secretary-General;3. Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take allnecessary measures to fulfil its mandate;

4. Calls upon the International Security Assistance Force to work in close consultation with the AfghanInterim Authority in the implementation of the force mandate, as well as with the SpecialRepresentative of the Secretary-General;

5. Calls upon all Afghans to cooperate with the International Security Assistance Force and relevantinternational governmental and non-governmental organizations, and welcomes the commitment of the

parties to the Bonn Agreement to do all within their means and influence to ensure security, includingto ensure the safety, security and freedom of movement of all United Nations personnel and all other

personnel of international governmental and non-governmental organizations deployed in Afghanistan;6. Takes note of the pledge made by the Afghan parties to the Bonn Agreement in Annex 1 to thatAgreement to withdraw all military units from Kabul, and calls upon them to implement this pledge incooperation with the International Security Assistance Force;

7. Encourages neighbouring States and other Member States to provide to the International SecurityAssistance Force such necessary assistance as may be requested, including the provision of overflightclearances and transit;

8. Stresses that the expenses of the International Security Assistance Force will be borne by the participating Member States concerned, requests the Secretary-General to establish a trust fund throughwhich contributions could be channelled to the Member States or operations concerned, and encouragesMember States to contribute to such a fund;

9. Requests the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force to provide periodic reports on progress towards the implementation of its mandate through the Secretary-General;

10. Calls on Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to provideassistance to help the Afghan Interim Authority in the establishment and training of new Afghansecurity and armed forces;

11. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

APPENDIX 3

UNSC Resolution 1510

The full text of resolution 1510 (2003) reads, as follows:The Security Council ,

Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1386 (2001) of 20 December 2001, 1413 (2002) of 23 May 2002 and 1444 (2002) of 27 November 2002,

Reaffirming also its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrityand national unity of Afghanistan,

Reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28September 2001 and reiterating its support for international efforts to root out terrorism inaccordance with the Charter of the United Nations,


35/46

35

Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout thecountry resides with the Afghans themselves and welcoming the continuing cooperation of theAfghan Transitional Authority with the International Security Assistance Force,

Reaffirming the importance of the Bonn Agreement and recalling in particular its annex 1which, inter alia, provides for the progressive expansion of the International Security AssistanceForce to other urban centres and other areas beyond Kabul,

Stressing also the importance of extending central government authority to all parts of Afghanistan, of comprehensive disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of all armedfactions, and of security sector reform including reconstitution of the new Afghan NationalArmy and Police,

Recognizing the constraints upon the full implementation of the Bonn Agreement resultingfrom concerns about the security situation in parts of Afghanistan,

Noting the letter dated 10 October 2003 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan(S/2003/986, annex) requesting the assistance of the International Security Assistance Forceoutside Kabul,

Noting the letter dated 6 October 2003 from the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic TreatyOrganization (NATO) to the Secretary-General (S/2003/970) regarding a possible expansion of the mission of the International Security Assistance Force,

Determining that the situation in Afghanistan still constitutes a threat to international peaceand security,

Determined to ensure the full implementation of the mandate of the International SecurityAssistance Force, in consultation with the Afghan Transitional Authority and its successors,

Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Authorizes expansion of the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force to allowit, as resources permit, to support the Afghan Transitional Authority and its successors in themaintenance of security in areas of Afghanistan outside of Kabul and its environs, so that theAfghan Authorities as well as the personnel of the United Nations and other internationalcivilian personnel engaged, in particular, in reconstruction and humanitarian efforts, can operatein a secure environment, and to provide security assistance for the performance of other tasks insupport of the Bonn Agreement;

2.Calls upon the International Security Assistance Force to continue to work in closeconsultation with the Afghan Transitional Authority and its successors and the SpecialRepresentative of the Secretary-General as well as with the Operation Enduring FreedomCoalition in the implementation of the force mandate, and to report to the Security Council onthe implementation of the measures set out in paragraph 1;

3. Decides also to extend the authorization of the International Security Assistance Force, asdefined in resolution 1386 (2001) and this resolution, for a period of twelve months;

4. Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force totake all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;

5. Requests the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force to provide quarterlyreports on the implementation of its mandate to the Security Council through the Secretary-General;

6. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.


36/46

36

APPENDIX 4Tony Blairs statement on military action in Afghanistan

7 October 2001The full statement is set out below:

Prime Minister Tony Blair: "As you will know from the announcement by President Bush military action

against targets inside Afghanistan has begun. I can confirm that UK forces are engaged in this action. I want to pay tribute if I might right at the outset to Britains armed forces. There is no greater strength for a British PrimeMinister and the British nation at a time like this than to know that the forces we are calling upon are amongstthe very best in the world.

They and their families are, of course, carrying an immense burden at this moment and will be feeling deepanxiety as will the British people. But we can take pride in their courage, their sense of duty and the esteem withwhich theyre held throughout the world.

No country lightly commits forces to military action and the inevitable risks involved but we made it clear following the attacks upon the United States on September 11th that we would take part in action once it wasclear who was responsible.

There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the mind of anyone who has been through all the available evidence,including intelligence material, that these attacks were carried out by the al-Qaeda network masterminded byOsama bin Laden. Equally it is clear that his network is harboured and supported by the Taliban regime insideAfghanistan.

It is now almost a month since the atrocity occurred, it is more than two weeks since an ultimatum as deliveredto the Taliban to yield up the terrorists or face the consequences. It is clear beyond doubt that they will not dothis. They were given the choice of siding with justice or siding with terror and they chose to side with terror.

There are three parts all equally important to the operation of which were engaged: military, diplomatic andhumanitarian. The military action we are taking will be targeted against places we know to be involved in theoperation of terror or against the military apparatus of the Taliban. This military plan has been put together mindful of our determination to do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties.

I cannot disclose, obviously, how long this action will last but we will act with reason and resolve. We have setthe objectives to eradicate Osama bin Ladens network of terror and to take action against the Taliban regimethat is sponsoring it. As to the precise British involvement I can confirm that last Wednesday the USGovernment made a specific request that a number of UK military assets be used in the operation which has now

begun. And I gave authority for these assets to be deployed. They include the base at Diego Garcia,reconnaissance and flight support aircraftand missile firing submarines. Missile firing submarines are in usetonight. The air assets will be available for use in the coming days.

The United States are obviously providing the bulk of the force required in leading this operation. But this is aninternational effort as well as UK, France, Germany, Australia and Canada have also committed themselves totake part in the operation.

On the diplomatic and political front in the time Ive been Prime Minister I cannot recall a situation that hascommanded so quickly such a powerful coalition of support and not just from those countries directly involved


37/46

37

in military action but from many others in all parts of the world. The coalition has, I believe, strengthened notweakened in the twenty six days since the atrocity occurred. And this is in no small measure due to thestatesmanship of President Bush to whom I pay tribute tonight.

The world understands that whilst, of course, there are dangers in acting the dangers of inaction are far, far greater. The threat of further such outrages, the threat to our economies, the threat to the stability of the world.

On the humanitarian front we are assembling a coalition of support for refugees in and outside Afghanistan

which is as vital as the military coalition. Even before September 11th four million Afghans were on the move.There are two million refugees in Pakistan and one and a half million in Iran. We have to act for humanitarianreasons to alleviate the appalling suffering of the Afghan people and deliver stability so that people from thatregion stay in that region. Britain, of course, is heavily involved in actually (indistinct) effort.

So we are taking action therefore on all those three fronts: military, diplomatic and humanitarian. I also want tosay very directly to the British people why this matters so much directly to Britain. First let us not forget that theattacks of the September 11th represented the worst terrorist outrage against British citizens in our history. Themurder of British citizens, whether it happens overseas or not, is an attack upon Britain. But even if no Britishcitizen had died it would be right to act.

This atrocity was an attack on us all, on people of all faiths and people of none. We know the al-Qaeda network threaten Europe, including Britain, and, indeed, any nation throughout the world that does not share their fanatical views. So we have a direct interest in acting in our own self defence to protect British lives. It was alsoan attack (indistinct) just on lives but on livelihoods. We can see since the 11th of September how economicconfidence has suffered with all that means for British jobs and British industry. Our prosperity and standard of living, therefore, require us to deal with this terrorist threat.

We act also because the al-Qaeda network and the Taliban regime are funded in large part on the drugs trade. Ninety per cent of all the heroin sold on British streets originates from Afghanistan. Stopping that trade is, again,directly in our interests.

I wish to say finally, as Ive said many times before, that this is not a war with Islam. It angers me, as it angersthe vast majority of Muslims, to hear bin Laden and his associates described as Islamic terrorists. They areterrorists pure and simple. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion a

Documents

The Illegal War With Afghanistan