Who Wrote to PWRef How to partecipate to the petition Who joined to PWRef How to join

Your opinions

How  work for or spread PWRef How to support PWRef PWRef  reasons


PRE-WAR REFERENDUM Via Bormida 4 00040 Torvaianica Rome, Italy
Fax 6-7311384
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.


- 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:


-   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 marěy 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 wŕy of simple protests which we have followed until today?

The basěs 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 irěternationally 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 whěch 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 gěving up, because “He, who already has renounced his search Is probably crazier than him”


Whith time it has become obvious that even if there exists a real conflict of interests none of the countries in question would suffer as much by yielding, as it would suffer by combat. With continuous bellic inventions it is sure that war will become always more destructive. The civilized races of the world will find themselves faced with the alternative of cooperation or the mutual destruction. An actual war makes this alternative more evident every day. And it is hard to believe that, when the enmities generated by it, will have had the time to cool off, civilized man will decide volontarily to destroy civilisation rather than agree to abolition of war. Man must learn to be conscious of the common interests of humanity which are identical, rather than of the so—called interests which divide nations.
Bertrand Russell. 1917 (Political Ideals)
Even science has lost its serene impartiality: those who serve it, deeply exacerbated, try to obtain arms from it to contribute to the fighting against the enemy. The anthropologist is induced to demonstrate that the enemy is an. inferior and degenerate being: the psychiatrist to diagnose in the enemy, perturbation of spirit and of mind.
Siegmund Freud. 1915 (Why War. Letters with Einstein. S. Freud)

The thirst for power of the dominant class is in every nation against whatever limitation of national sovereignity. This excesive wish for political power coincides with the purpose of those who search only mercenary and economical advantages. How is it possible that the above mentioned minority manages to pervert to its own cupidity, the mass of the people, which from a war can only expect suffering and loss? (Speaking of the general masses, I don’t exclude soldiers, of every rank, which have chosen war as their profession, convinced of being useful for the defence of the highest interests of their own race) . An obvious answer to this question would be, that the minority of those who from time to time have the power, have the upper hand, first of all in schools and the Press, and furthermore even in religious organizations. This allows them to organize furthermore even in religious organizations. This allows them to organize and by—pass the feelings of the masses, transforming them in instruments of their own politics.
Arbert Einstein. 1932 (Why War. Letters with Einstein. S. Freud)
 Torture like murder or war, is one of trie most extreme and tragic aberration of n’.ank Lid.
Martin Ennals. (Amnesty International.)Handbook 1979
Given the facts, objectively war must be considered the greatest mortal endemic disease of the brain of social man: Millions of dead and invalids are the result, among the most healthy and young individuals.
An eventual observer from above would have seen for centuries and centuries, always increasing groups of human animals (us) apparently in good health, going out of their minds, and suddently killing each other. Today with tecnological and atomical progress, he would see our planet suddenly burst into flames,
causing all of us to die. The resemblance to unconscious micro-organisms which burn themselves, helping to cause fire in the hay where they live, makes us feel really a non thinking animal. It humiliates us. This likeness would make the purpose of our long evolution only equal to the results of this micro-organism. This possibility is unfortunately today in the hands of not more than a thousand humans, which as history demonstrates, at the moment of the war declaration, are sure to survive it, not giving a thought about their fellow-creatures who will act it out.
The spirit of this inititive comes from the sensation of impotence which occurs in the sentence “What can I do alone?” in the face of the superimposing of situations and of the impossibility of changing the mind of those who say they represent us, but do not hesitate to sacrifice us. And from the desire to give to every person, without discrimination, the possibility of deciding personally, and democratically, the length of his own life, without which the other rights remain only meaningless words.
Knowing the real power of Press, would it be wrong to give the same relief to the reasons which produce war as to the ones that can avoit it?
In the full conviction of the absolute desire of conserving ones own life which animate all human beings on this planet, and Dear Sir, convinced of your feelings in accordance with the rest of humanity, I ask you to help to eliminate war, you (the press) can do it, and in a few years we will have a more just world.