U.S. right to use force challenged in U.N. report

By Colum Lynch
The Washington Post

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

The findings reflect persistent international unease over last year's U.S. invasion without an explicit council endorsement, noting, "There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power, or by any single — even benignly motivated — superpower."

In the section expected to be the most controversial, the report tries to set benchmarks for judging the legitimacy of using force pre-emptively or preventively for self-defense.

It says that before pre-emptive military action, there should be a review to determine whether force is the last and best resort.

It says that force is legitimate if an endangered state, backed by the Security Council, decides that a threat is serious and imminent; every nonmilitary option has been explored; the state has assessed the means, duration and scale of the strike needed to meet the threat and has no hidden agenda; and the military moves would not create consequences that are worse than the threatened action.

"There are good arguments for preventive military action, with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council," the report said. But "in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk of the global order ... is simply to great for the legality of unilateral preventive action ... to be accepted."

Ric Grenell, spokesman to the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said the Bush administration would withhold comment until the report is formally released tomorrow. The U.N. chief commissioned the panel — headed by former Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun and includes former U.S. National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft — to confront new threats to international security. They said the major threats include poverty, disease, civil war, terrorism, organized crime, weapons of mass destruction, and the ongoing disputes in the Middle East and Kashmir.

"Many people believe that what passes for collective security today is simply a system for protecting the rich and powerful," the report said. "Without mutual recognition of threats there can be no collective security."

The 95-page report calls on states to define and aggressively confront terrorism, eradicate poverty that fuels extremism, and enlarge the U.N. Security Council to extend the influence of the world's emerging powers. It also urges the 15-nation council to refer cases of genocide and large-scale war crimes to the International Criminal Court, a recommendation expected to engender fierce U.S. opposition.

The court was established by treaty, which was signed by the United States in 2000. The Bush administration renounced it in May 2001, citing concerns over possible frivolous investigations and trials against U.S. officials, troops and foreign nationals deployed overseas on behalf of the United States.

The U.N. report endorses the "emerging norm" that the Security Council has an obligation to intervene militarily "as a last resort" to prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing and other cases of mass killing that governments "have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent."
 
The report's 101 recommendations, particularly a plan to enlarge the Security Council, already have fueled resistance from governments who oppose some proposals.

The composition of the 15-nation Security Council reflects the balance of power at the end of World War II, in which the five key victors — the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France — have permanent seats with veto power and 10 other countries serve two-year terms.