PRE-WAR REFERENDUM Via Bormida 4 00040 Torvaianica Rome, Italy
Fax 6-7311384
 6-4881132
Rome, January 1991
Dears Sirs:
 Object: - To abrogate measures or war legitimized or applied by the  United Nations.
- To avoid war actions by the United Nations conducted  directly or in its name.

As in the Korean conflict.
To solicit United Nations General Assembly and member Governments, to abrogate articles 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51 chapter · (Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches or the peace, and acts or aggression) or the      Charter or the United Nations, through the media, poli_      tical parties, International Humanitarian Associations and every inhabitant or member countries.

Outlines:

- A) An abrogation appeal.
- E) World Petition for Pre-war Referendum (3rd reproposal).
- F) Copy or Chapter VII or the Charter or the United Nations.

A) _An abrogation appeal.
B) List of International Organizations.
C) List of Newspapers.
D) List of Political Parties.
- Conference in Moscow (Nov. 1943). The Governments of the Soviet  Union, United Kingdom, United States or America and China, dec_  lared that: "It is admitted that there is the need to establish  with the greatest brevity an International Organization, based on  the principle of the sovereign equality of all the States  which love Peace."
And with the constitution of the United Nations in 24/10/45, the  signing Nations agreed to respect the following principles:
_3rd. _Principle_: "The members will negotiate their international  divergences by pacific means."
_4th. Principle: "In their international relations they will not resort to threat or the use or force in any form incompatible with the purpose or the United Nations."
  In early December 1990, newspapers throughout world refer_  red to U.N. resolution 67¸ in the following terms: "Armed with a United Nations Resolution authorizing the use of force, ..."   Time, Dec. 10,1990 p. 2
"In a climactic week the United Nations Security Council autho  rized "all necessary  means"..."    Newsweek, Dec.
10,1990 p. 1
In the United Nations we have the most important instrument  that has ever existed for preserving peace among bellicose men. We  must, therefore, understand that the United Nations cannot autho  rize a war, since the goal of this Organization is the peaceful  mediation of controversies. The U.N. is made of the controversies  themselves.
- Articles to abrogate:__
Art.42“ The United Nations has lost tolerance after having  used measures without use or force(see art.41.)art 42 substantiates: “... it (the Security Council) may take such action by  air, sea or land forces as may be necessary."This is an  aeuphemistic way of saying the word "war". The people of the territories  administrated by "rebellious” leaders will be led into war by  means or force.
Art. 44“ Is more explicit:"When the Security Council has decided  to use force..."
We must consider the decisions taken by the 15 members of the  Security Council not the resolution of the General Assembly as a  whole» but the opinionated action of the 5 countries more  militarized. They have meetings "closed-door", are permanent  members with power or veto. The other 10 member nations are  rechangeable every 2 years and without veto.
This contrasts with the pargph.1, art.2, chap.1, "The Organiza_  tion is based on the principles or the sovereign equality of  all it Members."_
 Art.45:"In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent  military measures...."
Art.46:"Plans for the application of armed force...."
Art.47:"There shall be established a Military Staff Committee...  relating to the Security Council's military requirements..."
Art.51 Because it justifies reprisal by an attacked member  nation. There is the possibility that the presumable attacked  country, could claim that the conflict could belong, by  pretence, to its own internal competence.
These articles legitimize the use of force, which is in clear  violation of the _Purposes and Principles of the Charter  pargph.1,art.1,chapt.1,explicitly talks:”... to take effective  collective measures ..to bring about by peaceful means ...  adjustment or settlement of international disputes of situations  which might lead to a breach of the peace."_
We must become conscious of the fact that with our individual  vote, in our individual nations we legitimize the contents of  the articles of the Charter of the United Nations.
 All human collective activities can and must be improved, and continuous updating will give us the best and the most perfect of all Charters.This possibility is substantiated by art. 108: "Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly ..."
Therefore we must oppose any action of war by the United Na_ tions. Erect a barrier of interdiction and general dissention. Declare all use of force against to harm to be illegal. The action of the Organization must stop short of any measure of war, because if not the United Nations would simply create a block of allies around a common enemy.

Thus, we must create a union of nations that guarantees that it never  will legitimize reprisals of death or violence or "police actions". A single death or a single wounding out from its decision making.
Let us modify the Charter by abrogating the articles and by limiting its by-laws to the rule of non-intervention, giving more power to article 41 which permits interventions of any kind, excluding those that require measures of war.
A new improvement of the Charter should be the natural evolution of our United Nations.
This appeal is supported by  the  content of the World Peti_ tion or Pre-war Referendum,which is here reproposed for the 3rd time.
E) - _World petition of PRE-WAR REFERENDUM_
This document should be inserted among the Fundamental Human    Rights in the Universal Declaration or the United Nations. The    respect or this right should be guaranteed by all the gover_    nments of the nations which have signed the Universal Declara_    tion of Human Right.
I hereby ask you to publish the following:
PARTICIPATE TO THE WORLD REQUEST OF PRE-WAR REFERENDUM.

-   1983               TODAY’S ADDITION TO THE LETTER

— “There are missiles which can arrive at the target in just 6 minutes. What political man can make a decision as serious as this in so little time without delegating it to military men?” -

This is the thought that anguishes Wiily Brandt in his interview to “La Repubblica”, Italy 12/4/83 .

Writes Italo Pietra on the “Messaggero di Roma” the 29/1/81

- “In 1954 when the Viet-cong surrounded the entrenched French forces at Bien Dien Phu  , Bidault, Foreign Affairs minister received his american colleague Foster Dulles at Quai d’Orsai. They started chatting in French at an open window, and at a certain pomnt the State Secretary made the following proposition

“And if we gave you two atomic bombs to save Bien Dien Phu?” Bidault, who couldn’t betieve his OWfl ears replied:

“Atomic bombs? In that way we would destroy not only the Viet-congs but also our

such irnportance can be taken by such small men. One of the marìy re~sons~o propose the political pluralism and the larger popular political participation is the necessity of not letting the keys of war and peace remain in the hands of the few important personalities at the top.”­For how much time will we continue allowing unconsciously with our indifference

our few political and military representatives to decide for us on the right to uve? How rr.uch time is lGft te follow the road of political pragmatism, abandoning the wày of simple protests which we have followed until today?

The basìs of this proposition is to make the idea of democracy practicable, denying the authority of whoever decides today about our life, by means of the enlargement of the Fundamental Human Rights with the right to conserve our own life by means of the Pre-War Referendum.

Today the proposition is repeated to a world which I think is now more receptive. In addition to the newspapers I wrote to in 1980, I have included weeky and monthly magazines and many international organizations which I believe have the same objectives. To them I ask to add this proposition to their own inititives, possibly within their publications. I know my list Is incomplete and I shall be very grateful to hear from other associations.

I realise that the biggest handicap in this initiative is its proposal by an individu~I and not by an irìternationally known organization. I remember an anccdote which happened to a friend of mine;. whc during one of his a’+<’r_ periods in politics punctually every month received a letter from a citizen wh~ch proposed hi.m to change the color of all the traffic signals in the country (for whìch he cortainly had his qood re6sons) . I understand that it i~s not difficult in cases like this to be ironical, but the words of a song from a young itaiian folk singer are very appropriate and consoling. He sings about a poor fool who searches the “Island—that-does—not—exist” and on which “there Is no hatc, no violer₁ce, no heros, no saints, no soldiers, no weapons, no wars” and he invites him to continue searching, not gìving up, because “He, who already has renounced his search Is probably crazier than him”