Written evidence from Chris Coverdale,
Campaign to Make Wars History
WAR OR PEACE - THE CHOICE IS YOURS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission sets out new evidence relating to
Britain's foreign policy in Afghanistan and concludes that it
is unlawful, illegal, immoral and must be reconsidered.
We came to this conclusion after checking the extent
to which Britain's foreign policy meets, exceeds or falls short
of our treaty commitments and legal obligations to the Afghan
people. We found that:
- War is always illegal and the UN Security Council
can never authorise the use of armed force.
- Britain has broken every one of our binding promises
never to wage war, never to threaten or attack another state,
never to harm or kill a person because of their nationality, to
act peacefully, respect human rights, promote social progress,
uphold and enforce the law and work together in a spirit of brotherhood
and co-operation.
- By taking part in the illegal armed invasion
and occupation of Afghanistan and causing or contributing to the
deaths of 650,000 civilians, including 200,000 children, Britain's
armed forces broke the laws of war and committed genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, murder and a crime against peace.
- By commanding HM forces to take part in illegal
armed attacks on targets in Afghanistan, Britain's political,
civil, judicial and military leaders broke the laws of war and
are answerable for all the crimes committed by ISAF forces and
are criminally liable to arrest prosecution and punishment under
the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
- The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Attorney
General gave false legal advice to Parliament and the public on
the legality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Parliament and HM Armed Forces were deceived
into believing that the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan were lawful
and had been authorised by the UN Security Council.
Our recommendations are that the Foreign Affairs
Committee:
- Carefully considers the validity of this new
legal evidence.
- Contacts the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister
and "asks" them to halt the fighting.
- Informs Parliament of the new evidence and tables
an emergency debate to end the war.
- Sets up an independent inquiry (i) to investigate
the causes and sources of the problem and (ii) to recommend new
ways of ensuring that Britain upholds and enforces its treaty
obligations.
"The charges in the indictment that the defendants
planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity.
War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not 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." - Nuremburg War Crimes Trials 1946
AUTHOR
Chris Coverdale is a behavioural scientist, governance
consultant, peace campaigner and memetic engineer. After 30 years
working as an organisation development consultant he changed course
in 1999 and focused on exposing the corrupt practice that causes
Britain to violate international law and wage unlawful war. In
2008 he helped to found Make Wars History. His primary
skills and interests are in cognitive science, memetics and the
development of innovative governance systems and structures.
AIM AND
OBJECTIVES
1. The aim of this report is to persuade the
Foreign Affairs Committee and Parliament to stop the war and the
killing in Afghanistan whilst it reconsiders the legality and
purposes of the conflict.
2. We are also aiming to increase readers' understanding
of the laws of war and the illegality of the conflict in Afghanistan,
expose the false nature of the legal advice provided by the FCO
and Government lawyers, provide a simple way of checking the quality
of foreign affairs and persuade MPs to reverse their decision
to continue the war in Afghanistan. Our longer term intentions
are to reform the UK's systems structures and safeguards concerning
war and peace.
Is Britain's foreign policy towards Afghanistan
appropriate?
3. To establish whether the UK's foreign policy
approach is appropriate we identified the principal treaties governing
warfare and relationships between nations, picked out the main
terms of each treaty and developed a check list to establish whether
Britain has met, exceeded or fallen short of its commitments and
obligations to other nations. We then listed the main components
and achievements of Britain's foreign policy in Afghanistan over
the past nine years and compared them with the legally binding
promises given to the Afghan people.
What are the principal treaties governing warfare?
4. The main treaties which govern warfare and
the relationships between states are:
- (i) The General Treaty for the Renunciation
of War [the Kellogg-Briand Pact] 1928;
- (ii) The United Nations Charter 1945;
- (iii) The Genocide Convention 1948;
- (iv) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1948;
- (v) The Geneva Conventions and Protocols
1949, 1977;
- (vi) The Nuremburg Principles 1950;
- (vii) The Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court 1998 [RSICC].
What commitments and obligations do these treaties
contain?
"War between nations was renounced by the signatories
of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty. This means 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
be termed violators of this general treaty law. We denounce them
as law breakers." - Henry Stimson, USA Secretary of State
1932
5. We collated the terms of these treaties into
15 main pledges relating to war and peace. Each pledge is a legally
binding promise. Breaches of any of the first nine pledges are
crimes in international law and render all those involved criminally
liable for arrest, prosecution and punishment.
NINE PLEDGES
RELATING TO
WAR
- (i) never to plan, initiate or take part
in aggressive war;
- (ii) never to support condone or fund aggressive
war;
- (iii) never to threaten, attack or occupy
another State;
- (iv) never to use armed force except in self-defence;
- (v) never to take a human life or wilfully
kill a person;
- (vi) never to harm or kill a person because
of their race, nationality, ethnicity or religion;
- (vii) never to torture or inflict mental
or physical harm on a person;
- (viii) never to steal or destroy property;
- (ix) never to manufacture, possess, trade
or use (prohibited) weapons;
SIX PLEDGES
RELATING TO
PEACE
- (x) to settle all disputes peacefully whatever
their nature or origin;
- (xi) to uphold and abide by the law;
- (xii) to enforce the laws of war (arrest
and prosecute war criminals);
- (xiii) to respect human rights;
- (xiv) to promote social progress and better
standards of life for all;
- (xv) to work together in a spirit of brotherhood
and co-operation for peace and justice.
What are the main components of Britain's Afghanistan
policy?
6. The current phase of Britain's foreign policy
towards Afghanistan began on 7 October 2001 when the British Government
switched from peace to war and Tony Blair announced that at the
request of George Bush British forces were using submarine launched
missiles to attack targets in Afghanistan. Since then the main
components and achievements of the policy have been:
- (i) The illegal use of disproportionate overwhelming
armed force;
- (ii) The illegal invasion and occupation
of an independent nation state;
- (iii) The illegal use of indiscriminate weapons
of mass destruction [missiles, rockets, drones, cluster bombs,
mortars, white phosphorous and depleted uranium] against civilian
targets;
- (iv) The murder of approximately 650,000
civilians, including 200,000 children;
- (v) Serious injuries to approximately 1.5 million
men, women and children;
- (vi) Driving 4m people into exile and destitution
internally and in neighbouring states;
- (vii) The removal of the legitimate Taliban
Government;
- (viii) Installing the US friendly Karzai
[puppet] Government;
- (ix) Huge cash payments to gain warlord support
for the Karzai Government;
- (x) An eight fold increase in opium production;
- (xi) Expensive corruption-plagued attempts
to elect a nominal Parliament;
- (xii) Recruiting, training, equipping army
and police forces to support the Karzai Government;
- (xiii) Widespread increases in bribery and
corruption;
- (xiv) A ninety fold increase in expenditure
over the previous decade;
- (xv) FCO propaganda to justify the illegal
and unlawful actions of the UK Government;
- (xvi) Manipulation of UNSC resolutions to
justify the illegal occupation by NATO forces;
- (xvii) 335 UK service personnel killed, 5000
seriously injured / maimed, 20,000 mentally injured.
How does our performance in Afghanistan accord
with our treaty obligations?
7. By comparing Britain's performance in Afghanistan
with the terms of each treaty we were able to make a broad brush
assessment of the degree to which we had upheld our promises to
the Afghan people.
Have we fulfilled our obligation never to wage
war?
8. No. War was outlawed in 1928 by the General
Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact]. Sixty
three nations, including Britain, America and Afghanistan,
ratified the Pact condemning recourse to war and agreeing to settle
all disputes peacefully whatever their nature or origin.
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 with
one 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. - Kellogg-Briand
Pact 1928
9. This treaty, which is still in force, formed
the legal basis for the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials in 1946. When
the judges convicted and hanged Germany's political, civil and
military leaders for breaching the terms of this binding treaty,
they set an important precedent. In future, any person in a position
of authority, such as a Head of State, Member of Parliament, military
commander or Government official, who breaches this treaty and
plans, supports or takes part in a war of aggression commits an
offence and is criminally liable for punishment for crimes against
peace and humanity.
"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 as
an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition
that such war is illegal in international law; and that those
who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible
consequences are committing a crime in so doing."
10. Britain's forces have been waging war in
Afghanistan since 2001, have contributed to the deaths of at least
650,000 Afghan civilians of whom 200,000 were children, have injured
or maimed 1m people and have driven 4m into exile and destitution.
As none of our victims had done anything to attack Britain or
British interests, this atrocity violates the Kellogg-Briand Pact
and constitutes a war of aggression.
Have we fulfilled our obligation never to threaten
or attack Afghanistan?
11. No. The UN Charter is widely recognised as
the world's premier war law. When Britain signed and ratified
the UN Charter in 1945 we made a binding agreement on behalf of
the British people never to threaten or attack another member
state and to settle all disputes peacefully.
2.3 All members shall settle their international
disputes by peaceful means in such a manner 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 force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. -
Article 2 United Nations Charter 1945
12. On 7 October 2001 Tony Blair announced that
we were using missiles to attack targets in Afghanistan.
"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…
it is more than two weeks since an ultimatum was delivered to
the Taliban to yield up the terrorists or face the consequences…
The military action we are taking will be targeted against places
we know to be involved 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 we humanly
can to avoid civilian casualties…
We have set the objectives to eradicate Osama bin
Laden's network of terror and to take action against the Taliban
regime that is sponsoring it. As to the precise British involvement
I can confirm that last Wednesday the US Government 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… Missile firing submarines are in use tonight.
13. When Tony Blair said "it is more
than two weeks since an ultimatum was delivered to the Taliban
to yield up the terrorists or face the consequences"
he confirmed that the UK and the US had violated the UN Charter
by threatening the Taliban. By announcing that "Missile
firing submarines are in use tonight" he also confirmed
that British forces were attacking Afghanistan and, by using high-explosive
indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction such as missiles, were
setting out to cause thousands of casualties and widespread destruction.
This was a deliberate policy to terrify the Afghan population
into submission.
Have we fulfilled our obligation not to use armed
force except in self-defence?
14. No. Claims by the UK and US Governments that
the armed attacks on Afghanistan were taken in self-defence, and
thus were authorised under Article 51 of the UN Charter, are bogus.
The only time when a limited and proportionate use of armed force
is lawful occurs when a nation is forced to defend itself from
an armed attack by the forces of another state. Under Article
51 nations suffering an armed attack may use armed force to defend
themselves, but only until the Security Council implements measures
to resolve the conflict.
51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an
armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until
the Security 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
the authority 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 peace and security.
15. As there is no evidence whatsoever that the
Taliban Government of Afghanistan launched or supported the attacks
on the World Trade Centre there is no lawful justification
for the invasion or occupation of Afghanistan. As the Government
and people of Afghanistan made no attempt whatsoever to attack
Britain, there is not now and never has been a lawful justification
for Britain's participation in this war.
16. Under the UN Charter the only people authorised
to use armed force in the Afghan conflict are the people of Afghanistan
[the Taliban]. Under Article 51 they have the right to defend
themselves from the unlawful invasion and occupation of their
country by British, American and ISAF forces. If they notify the
UN Security Council of the unlawful attacks they can lawfully
continue to use armed force [rockets and IED's] to repel ISAF
forces until the UN Security Council implements peacekeeping measures.
How effective is the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office's contribution?
17. We believe that the main reason why so many
British citizens hold the false belief that the UK's use of armed
force in Iraq and Afghanistan is lawful stems from the fact that
for decades they have been given false and misleading legal advice
on the use of armed force by Government and FCO lawyers.
18. To illustrate this serious deception consider
the following statements taken from a letter written on 17 June
2009 on behalf of Bill Rammell, the FCO Minister, and Daniel Bethlehem,
the FCO legal advisor, in which they again attempt to justify
the legality of the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq.
"I should also like to add that under Article
24 of the United Nations Charter "its Members confer on the
Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security". Under Chapter VII of the
Charter, the Council may decide what measures shall be taken …
to maintain or restore international peace and security".
Under Article 25 "the members of the United Nations agree
to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council
in accordance with the present Charter…
19. In the sentence the Council may decide
what measures shall be taken … to maintain or restore international
peace and security note the 3 small dots signifying that parts
of Chapter VII have been left out. This is extremely important
because the phrase that has been left out is not involving
the use of armed force. Articles 41 and 42 from Chapter VII
of the UN Charter state:
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 prove to 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 include demonstrations, blockade and other operations by air,
sea, or land forces.
20. By deliberately omitting one of the most
important clauses in the UN Charter the FCO reversed the meaning
of the Article and successfully deceived Parliament and the public
into believing that the armed attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq
were authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of
the UN Charter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The use
of armed force is always prohibited and violates the terms of
the UN Charter. All actions by the Security Council must be non-violent.
21. The same letter includes the following statement:
"While I appreciate your comments about the
current situation in Afghanistan I can only reiterate here that
the UK is in Afghanistan at the invitation of the democratically
elected government of that country, operating along with the other
partner nations under United Nations Security Council Resolution
Nos 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003)."
22. This is another blatant attempt by the FCO
to falsify the facts. As Tony Blair's announcement of 7 October
2001 made clear, Britain is fighting in Afghanistan at the invitation
of George Bush NOT at the invitation of the democratically
elected government of that country. The meeting of the UN
Security Council, at which Resolution 1386 was passed, took place
on December 20th, 10 weeks after Britain and America
had attacked Afghanistan and after they had driven the legitimate
Taliban Government out of Kabul. This was another attempt by Britain
and America to justify this unlawful armed invasion and prepare
the world to accept the installation of the illegitimate Karzai
puppet government.
23. The FCO has had a central role in the planning
and conduct of the illegal invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan
and Iraq, and a central role in the multiple long term deceptions
that have taken place to ensure that Parliament and the public
support and endorse two of the worst atrocities in British history.
Members of the FCO must be held to account for their repeated
abuses of international law.
"As a citizen I regard it not only as a right
but as a moral duty to help shape the destiny of my country, to
uncover and oppose manifest evils. What I aimed to do was to rouse
my students to an ethical understanding of the grave evils of
our present political life; a return to definite ethical principles,
to the rule of law, to mutual trust between man and man. This
is not illegal rather it is the re-establishment of legality."
- Professor Kurt Huber Munich University 1943 shortly before
he was condemned to death for sedition.
What conclusions can we draw about Britain's policy
towards Afghanistan?
24. It is 100% American:
We attacked Afghanistan in 2001 and have been at war ever since
because George Bush asked Tony Blair for Britain's help ostensibly
to join the war on terror but in reality to remove the legitimate
Taliban government and replace it with the US-friendly Karzai
[puppet] government. Nothing about this action originated in UK
foreign policy and nothing about it benefits Britain.
25. It is unlawful: This
armed invasion and occupation of an independent nation state violates
international law and all the treaties governing the use of armed
force; in particular the Treaty for the Renunciation of War, the
UN Charter, the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremburg Principles
and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
26. It is criminal: The
use of modern indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction in 40,000
attacks on densely populated undefended towns and cities causing
the deaths of 650,000 civilians, including 200,000 children, injuring
1.5m and driving 4m into exile and destitution is the worst crime
known to mankind. Under the laws of war it renders those responsible
criminally liable to arrest and prosecution for crimes of genocide,
crimes against humanity, war crimes, murder and a crime against
peace.
27. It is costly: Supplying
and maintaining our armed forces to assist the illegitimate Karzai
Government to maintain control of Afghanistan by brute force and
corruption is 90 times more expensive than the previous peaceful
lawful foreign policy, and is unsustainable. UK taxpayers have
paid an average of £11,000 each since 2000 towards waging
illegal wars and killing innocent people. They will rebel soon.
28. It is unpopular: Recent
polls indicate that at least 76% of the UK electorate oppose the
continuation of the armed conflict in Afghanistan. The only people
we can find who believe that killing and injuring unarmed men,
women and children is an appropriate lawful course of action are
Government Ministers, MPs, Peers, military commanders, judges
or civil servants who have little or nothing to lose.
29. It is disreputable:
By breaching all the international treaties and laws governing
relationships between States, Parliament has dealt a fatal blow
to Britain's international reputation for fair play, honesty and
justice. We will soon have one of the least trustworthy and least
trusted Governments on the planet.
30. It is immoral: Having
promised the Afghan people that we would never wage war, never
attack them, never harm or kill them, settle disputes peacefully,
act lawfully and work together to mutual benefit, we broke our
word and used missiles, cluster bombs, white phosphorous and depleted
uranium to attack and kill thousands of men, women and children.
This is one of the most immoral acts in British history.
31. It is evil: Not one
of our victims had attacked or harmed us, was given the chance
to defend themselves in court or was shown any mercy before they
were intentionally shot, blown up, decapitated, disembowelled,
dismembered or burnt to death by order of Parliament and the British
Government. This atrocity will rank alongside those committed
by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot as an act of pure evil.
RECOMMENDATIONS
32. Carefully consider the validity of this
new legal evidence. The legality or illegality of the conflict
and the actions and omissions of the British Government can be
confirmed by referring to the wording of treaties and checking
the meaning carefully. To establish whether a person has committed
a war crime refer to the offences listed in (i) the Nuremburg
Principles, (ii) Article 25 of the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court or (iii) Sections 51 and 52 of the International
Criminal Court Act 2001. It is inadvisable to take the word of
the Attorney General, Government lawyers or FCO staff as they
have deceived everyone over the legality of warfare and the use
of armed force for years. If you speak to a lawyer be sure to
get them to explain the grounds on which they base their advice.
33. Contact the Foreign Secretary and Prime
Minister and ask them to halt the fighting. It is imperative
that the needless unlawful killing is stopped immediately. It
takes only a few minutes to give the orders to start a war and
it takes even less time to command it to stop. The Prime Minister,
the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence
Secretary all have the power to end or call a temporary halt to
the killing within minutes, so remind them that every hour's delay
means further innocent lives lost and that no-one has the
right to condemn an innocent person on either side of the conflict
to death.
34. Inform Parliament of the new evidence
and table an emergency debate to end the war. When
Parliament voted recently to continue the conflict and fighting
in Afghanistan it did so on the grounds that it was lawful. I
hope that this document has shown that war is never lawful, that
the only time when the use of armed force is condoned is when
it is used in self-defence to counter an armed attack, that the
legal advice from the FCO and Government lawyers was false and
that nothing about the conflict in Afghanistan is or has ever
been lawful. Providing that every MP is carefully briefed on the
laws of war, together with its prohibitions and implications,
prior to a new debate, it should be a formality to table, debate
and vote on a motion to end the conflict.
35. Set up an independent inquiry (i) to investigate
the causes and sources of the problem and (ii) to recommend new
ways of ensuring that Britain upholds and enforces its treaty
obligations. None of Blair's wars would have been fought and no
one would have been killed if the parliamentary and government
systems for upholding treaties and enforcing the law had been
working correctly. These atrocities could have been avoided if
any member of the Government, any Member of Parliament or any
law enforcement officer had at any time in the last nine years
understood the laws of war and been prepared to enforce them.
I suggest that Parliament [or the FAC] sets up an independent
inquiry team of five to seven members to carry out five main tasks:
- (1) To conduct an immediate investigation
into the laws of war and their prohibitions. Ask the inquiry to
report to Parliament within two weeks confirming the laws that
govern warfare and the use of armed force together with their
main requirements and prohibitions;
- (2) Within six weeks to investigate and report
on the false legal advice provided by government lawyers to Parliament,
FAC, the armed forces and the public over the past 10 years;
- (3) Within twelve weeks identify whether
British citizens committed war crimes and offences against the
laws of war in the past ten years, and if so, to identify which
criminal offences were committed and who is liable for arrest
and prosecution;
- (4) Within four months to recommend to Parliament
how best to organise and conduct criminal proceedings against
all those British citizens responsible for criminal offences against
the people of Afghanistan and Iraq;
- (5) Within five months (i) identify the main
systemic and structural faults in Government, Parliament and law
enforcement authorities that cause Britain to renege on treaties
and break international and domestic law; (ii) suggest systemic
and structural changes to Britain's system of Government to ensure
that in future we meet all our commitments and obligations to
the people and governments of other nations.
Are you willing to stop the killing - the choice
is yours
For nine years Britain has been waging unlawful wars
killing and injuring several million innocent Afghan and Iraqi
civilians, including one million children. These are the
two worst atrocities in British history and yet no-one with the
power to stop them has done so. This is a plea to every member
of both Houses of Parliament to take action now and force the
Government to uphold the law and end the killing.
5 October 2010
"and thus you are to act as though the destiny
of human life hung solely from your deeds and you and you alone
were accountable." - Adapted from J.G.Fichte
"If an injustice is of such a nature that it
requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say
break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the
machine. What I have to do is to see that I do not lend myself
to the wrong which I condemn." - Henry D. Thoreau 1854
The Foreign Affairs Index
A check list to help MPs and the public establish
the extent to which a nation has met, exceeded or fallen short
of its legally binding treaty commitments and obligations to other
nations.
Consider each statement in the Black List
and award the points in brackets if the Government has broken
that promise in the past twelve months. Only if you have awarded
no Black List points move to the White list
and award the points for each promise kept.
The Black List
| Never to plan, initiate or take part in aggressive war (40) |
______ |
|
| Never to support, condone or fund aggressive war (20)
| ______ | |
| Never to threaten, attack or occupy another State (5)
| ______ | |
| Never to use armed force except in self-defence (5)
| | |
| Never to take a human life or wilfully kill a person (5)
| ______ | |
| Never to harm a person because of their race, nationality or religion (10)
| ______ | |
| Never to torture or harm a person (5) |
______ | |
| Never to steal or destroy property (5) |
______ | |
| Never to manufacture, possess, trade or use (prohibited) weapons (5)
| ______ | |
| Total | ______/100
| |
The White List
| To settle all disputes peacefully whatever their nature or origin (30) |
______
| |
| To uphold and abide by the law (30) | ______
| |
| To enforce the laws of war (arrest and prosecute war criminals) (10)
| ______
| |
| To respect human rights (10) | ______
| |
| To promote social progress and better standards of life (10)
| ______
| |
| To work together in a spirit of co-operation and brotherhood (10)
| ______
| |
| Total | ______
/100
| |
| 
