Currently there are 189 member countries of the United Nations. Only 2 other countries exist, Switzerland and Vatican City, both opted not to join the UN. When the 189 countries became members of the United Nations, they agreed to follow the United Nations Charter which declares it's purposes to be:

The Purposes of the United Nations are: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. Source:  Charter of the United Nations

How many of these 189 countries still adhere to these agreements as members of the United Nations? How many politicians consider such words when they create their foreign policies and conduct their international actions and initiatives? How many politicians have any idea what the UN charter says? How many citizens can look at their country with pride and say, 'Yes, we are conducting ourselves in accordance with our pledge to be a part of the United Nations?

Policies are too often formed to maintain power relationships between countries of the world. They are devised to ensure wealth in their own land, without regard for the poverty that decision brings elsewhere. Wars continue to be fought over land, power, resources, and money. Countries not at war, may intervene in others conflicts only when their is something to gain for themselves.

As many nations of the world consider their position on a possible new attack on Iraq and take sides for and against the struggle, perhaps they should first contemplate not only the purposes of the UN but some of the principles listed below which, as member countries of the UN, they have agreed to:

• The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
• All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
• All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
• All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Source:   UN Charter Article 2

The question posed asks would an invasion of Iraq maintain international peace and security or would this in fact be a breach of international peace and security?

The UN Security Council consists of 15 member countries; China, Russia, France, UK, and the USA are the permanent members of the Security Council and are responsible alongside the other ten elected countries, to maintain international peace and security. Of these 5 permanent members, China and France have both already declared their support to withhold from a new offensive on Iraq. Any attack without the voted agreement of the member countries of the Security Council would have to be seen as an act of aggression.

Much of the concern for an invasion lies in the fact that Iraq has not let UN weapons inspectors into their country for a number of years which is a violation as a member country of the UN and has to be confronted. There has not been public evidence of any biological or chemical weapons to date, but still, the UN inspectors need to be allowed back into Iraq to ensure that this is the case. However in terms of war and international peace, Iraq have not invaded or made any threats to invade any country since Kuwait in the early 1990s, over 10 years ago. Are there though other concerns about Iraq?

Were Iraq the source of the terrorist attacks on the USA last September? Their country lies in the Middle East but thats about as far as the connection goes. The nationality of the terrorists of September 11th were mainly Saudi Arabian and Egyptian, ironically the allies in this war on terror.

Iraq is a devoutly Muslim country, but this is not surprising since Islam began in the territory now known as Iraq. Besides which, according to latest figures there are almost 2 billion muslims in the world. That is 1 in 4 people. Islam does not create terrorists, there are simply are a tiny percentage of radical militants who are muslims who practice terrorism, but they are not at all symbolic of 99.99% of muslims.

In fact, their militant actions are strictly in opposition with the teachings of the Qu'ran which teaches peace and understanding and tolerance to peoples of other faiths and beliefs. Islam is actually one of the only religions that does teach respect, tolerance and understanding for those who believe in other faiths. So back to the question, what justification is there for an attack on Iraq?

The United Nations was created in 1945 to help prevent any future atrocities such as those that occurred in World War I and II. It was to bring countries together in peace and to give them a forum to work out their differences other than on the battlefield. It was to protect the rights of human beings in whatever nation they lived. However it was not created for governments to interfere in other nations politics. Unless a country is attacking another nation, it is not actually the business of any other government, how that country runs their affairs.

If there are human atrocities such as genocide or persecution then the UN may be concerned as it may violate purpose 3 of the charter:

Purpose no.3 To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion

However even then it needs to be an international problem not a national problem for UN intervention to be justified. If a country has a different way of life, for example Iraq compared to Spain, then it is not the issue of the United Nations. If people in Iraq decide they want a different way of life, other than a dictatorship, then it is up to them to uprise against this. Revolutions have happened throughout history and they are the one of the means by which people fight for the way of life which they desire.

Looking back in history for example; in 1955 black people in the USA did not have the chance to vote. In the South, they could not eat in, sleep in, or travel in, the same places as white citizens and they certainly were not treated as equals. However this was not an issue for the United Nations. China for example did not take the problems of black citizens of the USA to the United Nations. And further more, Mozambique or Ethiopia would not be justified in deciding to attack the USA because they were not living according to their ideals.

The UN has a great charter and its purposes and principles are vital. Politicians on occasion need to be perhaps reminded of these.