UN reform to allow pre-emptive or preventive wars, but...

[brakada]

UN Reform Sought to Tackle Global Threats

Wednesday December 1, 2004 8:01 AM


AP Photo NY113

By EDITH M. LEDERER

Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A high-level panel called for sweeping reform of the United Nations to tackle global threats in the 21st century and said the Security Council must authorize any pre-emptive or preventive military attack, which it refused to do in Iraq.

The panel's long-awaited report, which was commissioned by Secretary-General Kofi Annan after last year's divisive diplomatic battle over the war against Iraq, said the dangers confronting the world today cannot be dealt with by any nation acting alone, even a superpower.

The 95-page report lays out a new vision for collective action to tackle threats to global security and puts ``a more proactive'' Security Council at the heart of a revitalized United Nations.

``The case for collective security today rests on three basic pillars,'' the panel said. ``Today's threats recognize no national boundaries, are connected, and must be addressed at the global and regional as well as the national levels. No state, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today's threats.''

The issues facing the international community, the panel said, go far beyond fighting wars and must include campaigns to fight poverty, terrorism, environmental destruction, organized crime and weapons proliferation.

The U.N. Charter now permits the use of force for self-defense only in case of an attack or if authorized by the Security Council.

But the panel said the international community must now be concerned ``about nightmare scenarios combining terrorists, weapons of mass destruction and irresponsible states ... which may conceivably justify the use of force, not just reactively but preventively and before a latent threat becomes imminent.''

``The question is not whether such action can be taken: it can, by the Security Council as the international community's collective security voice, at any time it deems that there is a threat to international peace and security,'' the panel said.

It also broadened the global threats that could require military action to include the protection of civilians from genocide and other atrocities.

Whether the panel's wide-ranging recommendations attract substantial support remains to be seen. Its members include former top U.N. officials, the former prime ministers of Norway and Russia, the former foreign ministers of Australia and China, and former U.S. national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

Annan plans to use the report as a basis for his own proposals in March to the U.N.'s 191 member states. He has invited world leaders to a summit in September to take action on U.N. reform and the new global agenda.

``We'll give it our careful consideration,'' U.S. Ambassador John Danforth said when asked about the report.

While the Security Council's refusal last year to authorize the U.S.-led war in Iraq served as the backdrop for the report, the panel only mentioned it as a case that sparked widely differing opinions and intense public attention. It said the U.S. decision to seek U.N. authorization - even in failing to win approval - had reaffirmed ``the centrality'' of the U.N. Charter.

The panel said any good argument for preventive military action should be put to the council in the future. If it refuses to authorize an attack, there will still be time to use persuasion, negotiation, deterrence and containment - and to try the military option again.

In what appeared to be a post-Iraq message to the United States, the panel said ``for those impatient with such a response, the answer must be that, in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order ... is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action....''

The panel made 101 recommendations on how to achieve a more secure world. They range from expanding the U.N. Security Council from 15 to 24 members and defining terrorism to overhauling the international system to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and authorizing a one-time buyout to put younger staff in top U.N. positions.

The panel declared the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - the cornerstone of global security against atomic weapons - was ``at risk'' because of noncompliance and the spread of technology.

``We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the nonproliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation,'' the report warned.

[NastyD]

The UN will still consist of separate nations with their own agendas, sensibilities and prejudices. The bickering will continue.

[mixu]

The UN needs to reform for its own survival if nothing else... I'm not sure this goes far enough though ? still no mention of increasing the number of permanent members of the Security Council who have the real sway.

[Yao]

The panel made 101 recommendations on how to achieve a more secure world. They range from expanding the U.N. Security Council from 15 to 24 members and defining terrorism to overhauling the international system to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and authorizing a one-time buyout to put younger staff in top U.N. positions.

Yes there is.

Good morning UN, finally waking up?!

[mixu]

The five permanent members are the US, UK, France, Russia and China... the other 10 only serve two-year terms which means the permanent members hold the ultimate veto.

Japan, Germany and India ? as well at least one African nation and Latin American ? should hold permanent membership to give the Security Council any balance.

[asdf_admin]

UN is worthless.

Too Many Fuck Ups.

Too Many People Have Died Under Such A Terrible Group Of Greedy Powers.

All Memebers Should Be ^&*^.

And The Powers Dismantled.

[acmatos]

Koffi Annan has to go. Until then, nothing will change.

[toasty]

Not to sound like Ghandi here or anything, but a policy that authorizes more war cannot result in peace. It might result in less actual armed conflict, but that is different than peace.

For example, we aren't currently at war with North Korea or Iran, but I wouldn't describe our relations as peaceful.

In fairness, though, I think this is just a matter of semantics.

[Yao]

I don't really think it's meant to go to war, but to give peacekeeping troops more possibilities of maintaining order. They won't have to sit around watcing people finish each other off while they're not allowed to interfere, like in Rwanda. Imagine what would've happened there if Dallaire was given his 5000 blue helmets and the fiat to go and clean up the mess. But they didn't.

Boutros-Boutros Ghali and Annan (at that time BBG's second) both had the information, they new what was going on, and they did nothing. I still get angry reading about that.

And now the same shit is happening in Sudan, and partially in Ivory Coast. France couldn't do anything until attacked, and only then they destroyed IC's air force (which wasn't much anyway).
In Sudan monitors from the UN have been denied acces to zones where Janjawid and government troops are suspected to raid villages, and still they keep talking with Omar Al-Bashir whilst people are getting killed and made homeless, children are abducted and women are raped. That makes me sick.
It makes me even sicker that when the first mandate ended end october, they just renewed it instead of imposing at least sanctions. And now they even omitted the sanctions because Russia and Pakistan are against it...

Aint politics fun?

That reform is nessecary, and Annan has to go. The UN needs someone with the balls to do something about it, not to wait until it is too late.

[thesightless]

Re: UN reform to allow pre-emptive or preventive wars, but..

EITHER way, its gonna take a complete dissarmament and abandonment by korea or a nucular strike by them for anything to happen peacefully or otherwise

[runningman]

The UN is a complete waste of time.. the UN is for the politicians.. If the UN cared about anything they would come together and do something about Africa.. til i hear that they all came together for the better good and make a "real" attempt to help Africa i wouldn't listen to a thing they say.. They aren't even real in my world.. they have done absolutly nothing since the UN has begun.. they aren't real..

[mixu]

Hmm...

It is absurd that in a world overshadowed by 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, decisions on war, peace and economic sanctions are still taken, or blocked, by the five countries which won the second world war. It is not necessary to admire George Bush to recognise the right of the world's only superpower to have a permanent seat at that famous horseshoe-shaped top table in New York. Nor of 1.4 billion Chinese. But post-Soviet Russia and two medium-sized European countries - Britain and France - have only distant victory and an official monopoly on nuclear weapons to justify their privileged position.

The proposal by this blue chip panel that there should be six more permanent council members - from Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Muslim world, as well as three rotating seats - is to be welcomed inasmuch as it would be more representative. It is hard to see though how it would be more effective since the current "P5" would retain their vetoes. The same is true of an alternative proposal for a second tier of eight semi-permanent countries. In an ideal world Europe would occupy a single seat to give the continent the global role it deserves. But giving Germany one is no solution. The fact that 16 eminent diplomats and politicians were split on this shows how hard it will be to agree any such changes.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1364061,00.html

[Yao]

Nice article.

I don't agree with seeing Europe as one political body, it is still too divided for that. The political impact of Germany, France and the UK is still too big, and I doubt they would be willing to let one seat represent them. It would however make things less complicated if it could be done.

I do agree with the extra six permanent members, that way a decision has more legtitimacy globally I think. On the other hand, more opinions is less consensus most of the time.

I'm already glad that Annan is finally showing some guts and willingness to really change the situation for the better, but I'm not going to believe it until I see the first results.

[davetlv]

My initial thoughts about this report is to little to late.

I'm not convinced, with all the political and moral will in the world, that this organisation can change.

Talking about changing the 'rules of engagement' for peace keepers is fine if you believe that's the only problem is that. Its not. The UN is corrupt, possibly, beyond redumption.

The idea that blocks of countries can 'gang up' on others just because they can get the votes is nothing more than lunacy. It doesn't matter how just your cause is in the UN, all that matters is how many votes you can control.

I guess when the old League of Nations was initially established it made perfect sense to have an organisation looking out for the world interests, and even more so after the second world war. But we, as humanity, have moved on since then.

I think it's about time we disband entirely the organisation and build something, more relevant. to the challenges of the 21st century. Making changes to the UN as it stands is like using a band-aid to fix a broken limb - a complete waste of time!