It's time for the UN Security Council to live up to its responsibilities and take a stand. It's time for the UN Security Council to tell the United States of America to get nicked.

The United Nations must take leadership now and accept the will of the majority of the people of the world - that there is no case for a US-led military invasion of Iraq. The draft resolution currently before the UNSC authorising the use of force against Iraq must be defeated. The United States and its bizarrely-titled "Coalition of the willing" must accept whatever decision is forthcoming.

It seems likely at this stage that the US will struggle to reach the first pre-requisite of success with the resolution - obtaining at least 9 votes out of the 15 council members. There appears to be a lot of bribery being offered in the way of foreign aid and so forth in a bid to buy these votes. Even then, the resolution still has to be carried without veto, which any one of France, Russia or China seem likely to perform.

The veto is certainly a flaw of the existing Security Council process, in that the five permanent members empowered with veto rights are not as appropriate now as they were in the 1940s. The US, Russia and China fair enough, but is it still appropriate in 2003 for the UK and France to carry that sort of weight? Nonetheless, the process is there and is accepted. It is totally unjustifiable for the US to think that they can disregard a Security Council veto just because they consider it "unreasonable". And there have been plenty of times when a US veto has thwarted Security Council action in the past.

Make no mistake, there has been no justifiable case put forward for an attack on Iraq. No case has been made which links the Iraqi Government with organised international terrorism, whether in the guise of Al Qaeda or otherwise. And no case has been made to show that a US-led occupation of Iraq will stabilise the nation, or that it will provide any material progress in the so-called "War on Terror".

Importantly, the proposed attack on Iraq is totally contrary to popular opinion almost everywhere outside of the United States. If the US media were to paint a balanced picture we would probably see that there is strong opposition inside the US as well. Certainly the New York Times editorial of 9 March 2003 opposes war without UN backing.

Just as importantly, there is a process in place - the UN weapons inspection procedures - which is the best means available to address the problem at hand, namely that of the Iraqi Government meeting previously-stipulated requirements regarding destruction of prescribed types of weapons.

Any head of state who embarks on any military aggression against another sovereign state without international authority becomes, by definition, a war criminal. John Howard, whose attitude is totally contrary to overwhelming popular opinion in Australia, should be mindful of this.