Global Security Pact? Sovereignty as Responsibility
By Jan Kozak, March
2004, UN University for Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica
Introduction
“The acceptance of American leadership by others
is the sine qua non for avoiding chaos.”
– Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Choice: Global
Domination or Global Leadership, 2004)
The “community of democracies” must be prepared
to use force in certain cases, as in Iraq. Such an approach might well require
a change in international law, which previously held that the sovereignty of a
single state was inviolable… and today, we ask if it should be possible,
looking into the future, to intervene as exporters of democracy and freedom in
the whole world.
–
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of
Italy (2003)
Mr. Berlusconi is considered to be one of the more controversial figures in
European political life today. Yet, his statement, quoted in the International
Herald Tribune on December 5, 2003, is indicative of what may turn out to
constitute one of the most significant developments in the field of
international law and international relations following the end of the Cold
War.
When, if ever, is the “community of democracies”, or anyone else for that
matter, justified to conduct interventions in domestic affairs of other states
aimed at restoring (or creating) security, effective democratic government and
protection of human rights?
The 1990s have seen a number of interventions: in Liberia in 1990, northern
Iraq in 1991, Haiti in 1994, Sierra Leone in 1997, and in East Timor in 1999.
Interventions in Somalia in 1993, Rwanda in 1994, and Bosnia in 1995 have been
generally assessed by the international community as “too little too late,
misconceived, poorly resourced, poorly executed, or all of the above” (Evans &
Sahnoun, 2002).
While the authorization of such interventions requires the UN Security Council
(UNSC) to adopt a resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United
Nations acting to “maintain or restore international peace and security”, it
is arguable that conflicts in the aforementioned countries in fact presented a
threat to global peace and security. Interestingly, none of these resolutions
was adopted solely on security grounds. Rather, they were justified primarily
on humanitarian grounds and often with the consent of the states concerned,
the sole exception being the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999.
With the end of the Cold War and the US rising as the sole economic and
military superpower in the world, the likelihood of a major inter-state
conflict posing a threat to global peace and security has been reduced to a
minimum. Yet, that does not mean the world is safe from threats to global
peace and security. With the end of the Cold War in 1989, the atmosphere at
the UN was characterized by excessive optimism, while conflicts in the Third
World began to resurface. It was in this light that the international
community began paying greater attention to the destabilizing forces in the
Third World. Already in a 1992 statement made by the UNSC, it was declared
that “The proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction constitutes a
threat to international peace and security. The members of the Council commit
themselves to working to prevent the spread of technology related to the
research for or production of such weapons and to take appropriate action to
that end” (UNSC, Note by the President of the Council, 1992). President Bush
(Sr.), in his remarks to the UNSC on January 31, 1992, declared democracy,
human rights and the rule of law to be the building blocks of peace and
freedom. The US as a global hegemon, matched neither in military nor in
economic power, however, had given to itself the privilege of enforcing this
order when it suited its interests, while demanding exemptions from other
rules. This is perhaps best illustrated by the vehemence of US rhetoric when
it comes to international trade liberalization negotiations or rule-setting
pertaining to WMD and by the blatant rejection of other international efforts
on issues such as climate change or international justice. Ironically, in the
same speech, Bush (Sr.) recognized the limitations that the Cold War imposed
on the UN capacity to take appropriate action to defend and promote democracy,
human rights and the rule of law. He called for an internal reform of the UNSC
to better deal with “the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
regional conflicts, destabilizing renegade regimes that are on the horizon,
terrorism, and human rights violations” (George Bush, 1992). At least
rhetorically, the US was prepared to cooperate with allies to ensure that
dangerous materials and technology did not fall into the hands of terrorists
or others. As has been demonstrated vividly by terrorist attacks around the
world during the past few years, civilians and sites perceived by terrorists
to symbolize power and oppression came to be seen as alternative targets of
violence and intimidation. What used to be a phenomenon localized in nature
acquired a truly global character and as such requires the attention of and
responses from the international community at large. I argue that terrorism
and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) pose an imminent threat to global peace
and security, and make the very possibility of promoting free-markets, human
rights and democracy impossible.
The key assumption and simultaneously a point of departure for the argument
advanced in this essay is the simple observation that free markets, human
rights and democracy, in most instances, represent an appealing alternative to
inefficient, state-run economies and authoritarian regimes that violate even
the most basic human rights on a daily basis. I define democracy as a
political regime, which allows for the adjudication of human disputes through
negotiation and compromise, enables people to live under the laws of their
choosing, and requires an effective, equitable and accountable exercise of
power by governments.
What policies and strategies should be implemented to respond adequately to
the constantly evolving threats to human and state security and thus work
towards the ideal-type of democracy defined above? I argue that security
concerns and humanitarian concerns should be seen as interdependent, and as
such, treated simultaneously.
In this essay, I argue that issues pertaining to international peace and
security should provide a key point of convergence for the veto-wielding
members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). When dealing with such
matters, political and ideological differences among them must be set aside.
Given the nature of new threats to global security, particularly in the form
of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, pre-emptive action
must become an integral legal tool at the disposal of the international
community to protect peace around the world. Pre-emptive action constitutes
any political decision to pre-empt a security threat from materializing in the
first place. Thus, a broad array of tools is available beginning with
diplomatic efforts and public shaming, suspension of membership in specific
multi-lateral organizations, imposition of embargoes and economic sanctions,
and ending with pre-emptive use of military force. This gradation subsequently
permits the development of indicators of success or failure of a particular
degree of pre-emptive action. Thus, a failure of one pre-emptive action to
deliver a desired result implies a need to employ a more severe action.
Framing all such actions as pre-emptive is also instrumental for meeting the
requirements of the “just war” theory within a new “pre-emptive” (rather than
“reactive”) framework, as it identifies a particular threat to security early
on, allows for the exhaustion of all other alternatives before resorting to
the use of military force, and is fully consistent with the purposes of the
Charter of the United Nations.
I
develop a two-tier argument for two distinct sets of challenges to global
security. First, I argue that the principle of “sovereign equality of states”
must be replaced with the principle of “sovereignty as responsibility” to
determine more effectively when to intervene pre-emptively on humanitarian or
security grounds. Second, I address the political dimension of the issue by
elaborating on the roles that the US and the remaining four veto-wielding
powers should play at the UN Security Council (UNSC) to strengthen the
credibility of the UN and the international legal framework in general.
The “Responsibility to Protect” report of the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty issued in December 2001 provides a useful
starting point for my discussion. However, it addresses primarily the first
dimension of my argument and fails to respond adequately to the second one.
That is, it sketches the contours of a new legal framework through the use of
the “just war” theory, but fails to give due recognizance to the limitations
of any such legal framework in terms of the political commitment that is
necessary to its effectiveness. This essay therefore contributes to the
emerging literature on the concept of “sovereignty as responsibility” by
drawing the connection between the legal and political aspect of the problem
at hand.
In agreement with the “Responsibility to Protect” report, I argue that
sovereignty of states entails both rights and obligations under international
law towards their citizens and towards the international community. In
instances when a state fails to comply with those obligations, the
international community is justified to circumscribe some or all of its rights
to effectively restore security and the protection of human rights for
individuals in states in non-compliance (Evans & Sahnoun, 2002). Armed
intervention should nevertheless always be seen as the last resort, and must
always meet the requirements of “just war” theory.
Second, I argue that it is in the interest of the US and the world at large to
maintain global peace and stability, and thus create conditions conducive to
greater prosperity and well-being for all through policies to promote
international trade, human rights and democracy. Terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) both pose an imminent threat to the very possibility of
democratic politics as they target civilian populations and instill feelings
of fear and insecurity. The culture of fear created in such conditions
severely constrains human rights and fundamental freedoms, which are essential
for the full realization of an individual in a modern society. With the
presence of an uneasily identifiable security threat to the very possibility
of democratic politics, it may indeed appear as both necessary and desirable
for individuals to retreat from public and political life altogether. Thus,
issues pertaining to security matters should provide a key point of
convergence for the liberally-minded international community committed to
attaining global peace, and particularly for veto-wielding states at the UNSC.
In other words, political and ideological differences among major powers must
be set aside when dealing with threats to peace and global security. The US
will act to pursue its interests with or without the consent of the
international community as long as such actions are seen as both necessary and
legitimate in the eyes of the US citizenry. Should the US government fail to
legitimize its actions, it might jeopardize its re-election. The failure of
the Bush administration to prove Iraq possessed WMD may severely undermine
Bush’s chances for re-election. It was perhaps for this reason why the most
recent US military action in Iraq was always justified on multiple grounds. As
Richard W. Stevenson of New York Times notes,
Bush has always been careful to have multiple
reasons ready and has deployed them deftly to adapt to changing circumstances.
In trying to build public and international support for toppling Saddam, the
administration cited, with different emphasis at different times, the banned
weapons, links between the Iraqi leader and terrorist organizations, a desire
to liberate the Iraqi people and a policy of bringing democracy to the Middle
East (Stevenson, 2003).
This may send a powerful message to other regimes and as such may function as
a deterrent factor. Iran has already agreed to accept international
inspections of its nuclear programs.
Thus, even when there appears to be an international disagreement on the issue
of authorizing an armed intervention on humanitarian or other grounds,
whenever the US is involved in advancing such justifications, the
international community and the UNSC in particular should follow suit not to
render themselves irrelevant in an increasingly unstable and uncertain world,
but simultaneously ensure they support such interventions that are legitimate
within the “pre-emptive” framework of sovereignty as responsibility. Only if
all UNSC members remain actively engaged with the superpower will they be able
to play active and relevant roles both in determining the course and the
conduct of war as well as post-war activities. Simultaneously, in the interest
of reciprocity, the US should always ensure to fulfill the requirements of the
just war theory as outlined below to prevent allegations of US imperialist
tendencies and gain the greatest amount of legitimacy and credibility possible
both at home and internationally.
I.
Sovereignty as Responsibility
International Law and the Sovereign Equality
of States
The foundational doctrine of international law – the sovereign equality of
states – assures the states the prerogatives of territorial integrity and
political independence. This doctrine is upheld by the principle of
non-intervention on matters of domestic jurisdiction. Since the founding of
the UN, it was assumed that good domestic governance and upholding of friendly
inter-state relations would ensure the maintenance of international peace and
security. Yet, the record of human rights abuses is growing, rule of law is
weak or non-existent in many parts of the world, and illegitimate and
unaccountable governments together with ruthless dictators continue to
contribute to growing poverty and feelings of fear and insecurity everywhere.
The threats that terrorism presents to global security only add to the already
unsatisfactory state of affairs in the world today. It is obvious that many
states lack the capacity, and often the willingness, to take appropriate steps
to deal with this situation. Equally so, it has become clear that the UN has
neither the capacity nor possibility to act effectively. It is for this reason
that the doctrine of sovereign equality of states must be abandoned by the
permanent five (P5) members of the UNSC in their deliberations on the
doctrine’s application in the name of a more effective protection of human
rights and fostering of global peace and security.
International Law and Limits to Sovereignty
A
state’s legal and moral right to claim protection of the norm of
non-intervention is dependent upon it satisfying a certain minimum or basic
standards of humanity. A failure of a state to act responsibly at home or
internationally must imply a permanent or temporary loss of its sovereignty
depending on the gravity of the breach. As sovereign states remain the only
actors through which to maintain security and stability on the international
plane, the challenge for the liberally minded international community today is
to close the gap between the commitments to and the actual practice of
international law through public condemnation of international law violations,
promises of rewards for good behavior, threats of economic sanctions, and
ultimately armed intervention, if necessary. The society of liberally minded
states has the potential to use international law as a civilizing force
against repressive regimes. This indeed requires a radical revision of
international law especially in regards to the procedures authorizing the use
of force against states posing an imminent threat to international peace and
stability.
International Law and the Enforcement Issue
The UN represents a largely inadequate tool to deal with security threats
originating from non-state actors such as terrorist groups and from the
so-called rogue states, which defy the very foundations of international
governance and consistently fail to abide by key international laws and
regulations pertaining to fundamental security issues, as well as broadly to
issues of human rights protection.
The UN does not have the enforcement powers necessary to give effect to its
decisions unless the member states concerned are genuinely committed to their
enforcement. As Thomas Buergenthal points out, “The effectiveness and
legitimacy of any law ultimately depends on the recognition of its usefulness
by contracting parties ceding some of their rights in their common pursuit of
peace and stability” (Buergenthal, 2002).
In today’s world, the state will necessarily remain the fundamental building
block of the international system of global governance. Ultimately, it is the
state, which is (or should be) accountable first and foremost to its citizens.
Given the growing global interdependence, the principles of national
sovereignty and territorial integrity in the international legal system can no
longer be upheld in the same consistent manner as has been the case throughout
the 20th century. Coalitions, particularly among the world’s major
powers including the US, Russia and China, will need to be strengthened to
share the burden of promoting peace, prosperity and freedom through
international policies aimed at economic and political liberalization, and
through armed interventions, where all other efforts have failed. Only an
international legal system backed by a united coalition of the world’s major
powers can function effectively and benefit both the major powers and the rest
of the world.
The US is the only power, which possesses the capacity to enforce
international law. It is also in the interest of the US to define its foreign
policy objectives in terms of global interests, and subsequently pursue these
through exemplary leadership. This implies the need for the US to actively and
consistently (to the extent possible) promote free markets, democratic ideals,
human rights and the rule of law everywhere. There is substantial historical
evidence that totalitarian regimes ignoring international law pose the
greatest threat to both the US and global security. As Michael Ignatieff
stated it however, “Multilateral solutions to the world’s problems are all
very well, but they have no teeth unless America bares its fangs” (Ignatieff,
2003). The “Responsibility to Protect” report identifies international
prestige to be one of the primary obstacles in efforts to form coalitions
tasked with challenging mandates related to military interventions, which has
little to do with questions of legitimacy and justification. Unless the UNSC
decision-making rules are reformed to integrate the notion of “sovereignty as
responsibility” to more adequately respond to terrorism and other threats to
global security, the US will assume the obligation to police the world and
enforce international law through any means available including military
force, particularly in cases where such violations are deemed to present
imminent threats to both US and global security. The P5 of the UNSC should
therefore refrain from using this privilege on issues requiring authorization
of measures aimed at enhancing world peace and security unless their vital
national interests are threatened by such a decision. This is most often not
the case anyway. The threshold should be determined strictly, and veto power
should be invoked solely if the intervention posed an “imminent threat to
national security” (i.e. if the state had the possibility to retaliate using
nuclear weapons or the capacity to wage direct war on the territory of one of
the P5) or if lives of any citizens of the P5 were threatened. As the deadlock
over the authorization of military intervention in Iraq illustrated, the
inability of the UNSC to act stemmed primarily from political and ideological
disputes among the P5 rather than from a strictly legal argument or a careful
analysis of the possible consequences of UNSC inaction.
The UNSC members and particularly the US can provide the enforcement power to
the UN and thus add to its credibility as a relevant institution with a
mission to maintain peace and security in the 21st century. The UN
can in turn legitimize the pursuit of US interests framed in terms of global
interests. This mutually beneficial partnership would also make it more likely
that the rules and requirements of the “just war” theory could be effectively
met.
Evans and Sahnoun, for instance, argue that for any military intervention to
be justified, “Civilians must be faced with the threat of serious and
irreparable harm” (Evans & Sahnoun, 2002). The international community today
has the resources and information available permitting its members to
determine when such interventions are both necessary and desirable.
Additionally, any military intervention should also be motivated by a “right
intention”, seen as a “last resort”, it should utilize “proportional means”
and should have “reasonable prospects” of succeeding in meeting its objectives
of restoring security, peace, and political (if possible democratic)
stability.
Indeed, the last principle of “right authority” has been subject to
controversial debates. The UN should be unquestionably the principal
institution for building, consolidating, and using the authority of the
international community to foster international cooperation and maintain peace
and security worldwide. But what happens when political and ideological
disputes enter the arena of international law in a manner prohibitive of
creating a consensus within the UNSC on matters relating to threats to the
peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression? I would argue that in
cases of political deadlock within the UNSC, the “right authority” principle
can and should be met by anyone who can equally meet all other requirements of
the just war theory, be it the US or any other global or regional entity. In
other words, the “responsibility to protect” argument can be advanced for any
legitimate actor in international relations, which is concerned, capable and
willing to undertake all adequate measures to intervene and restore peace and
stability.
II.
Prospects for Global Security in
the 21st Century
The Future Roles of the US and the UN
The US National Security Strategy makes it explicit that the US will exercise
its right of self-defense by acting preemptively against terrorists to prevent
them from doing harm against the American people and the United States. It
further reaffirms that the US will strive to enlist the support of the
international community, but will not hesitate to act alone (White House,
National Security Strategy, 2002). The US should indeed strive to persuade the
international community of the need to broaden the right of self-defense to
include preventive self-defense under international law. However, the success
or failure of this effort to reform international law to promote peace and
security will depend on the extent to which the new understanding of
“sovereignty as responsibility” will be accepted by the international
community.
The concept of preemptive self-defense necessarily implies the weakening of
the concept of national sovereignty and territorial integrity under
international law. It also implies that the US may find itself fighting many
more illegal wars (according to international law), as was the case in Kosovo
or most recently in Iraq. Ultimately, however, whether legal or illegal, the
international community will judge the US not according to the legality of its
actions, but according to their legitimacy. If, in the end, the NSCWMD turns
out to be successful at installing democratic governments in places previously
governed by ruthless dictators, if human rights are respected, and gains from
economic development widely shared among the population at large, the US-led
War on Terrorism will set an important precedent placing concerns for human
rights, peace, stability and security above the principles of national
sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Pre-emptive Self-defense: Getting out of Hand?
What is perhaps slightly disturbing about the recent developments in framing
US foreign policy is the potentially destabilizing effect it may have on the
established international order. If the US indeed gets its way and succeeds in
bypassing the UN every time it chooses to do so, how should the international
community respond to similar claims advanced by other states? The potential
for new conflicts to emerge may dramatically increase if other states
interpret the current US foreign policy as a signal providing a precedent for
the use of military force framed as “preventive self-defense”. The invocation
of such right in unstable regions such as the Middle East or South Asia,
namely India and Pakistan, could have dangerous implications for regional
stability and increase the prospects for deployment of WMD, including nuclear
weapons. The US clearly needs to address this concern. The UN can provide a
suitable arena to resolve such disputes. Although the US seems to be demanding
that the right to “preventive self-defense” be restricted only to itself, it
is quite unlikely that the international community and the UNSC in particular
would in fact respond positively to such demands. To ensure that the right to
preventive self-defense is not abused and that the requirements of just war
theory are complied with, the P5 should forge an alliance to pursue joint
policies on security matters of their respective concerns, while using their
international law enforcement powers to prevent conflicts from emerging in
problematic regions. Unless such an informal reform of the UNSC takes place,
the UN itself will have to accept that its role will be confined to
peace-keeping, peace-building and some humanitarian interventions. In the
worst case scenario, if the P5 are unable to arrive at a consensus every time
a politically controversial issue arises, the UNSC may render itself useless
and irrelevant in regards to achieving its main mission: promote a more
secure, stable and peaceful world. In particular, it will therefore depend on
the understanding of the remaining four members of the UNSC of the
effectiveness of their veto powers in instances when the US is determined to
go to war with or without UNSC authorization. The following section points to
a number of reasons why such a concerted approach to security matters on the
part of the P5 should be seen as increasingly necessary and desirable.
The Third World Threat to Global Security in the post-Cold War Era
As a result of the withdrawal from the Third World of the two major
superpowers following the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the
Soviet Union, the Third World has been increasingly seen as unimportant to the
United States. Internal conflicts and the lack of sophisticated weaponry were
thought to be factors, which would not have the potential to threaten global
peace and security. However, there is a growing likelihood that the Third
World states will act in ways inimical to American interests due to the
persistence of instability often leading to war combined with the increasing
capability of many Third World states to threaten American interests,
particularly in the areas of nuclear non-proliferation and supply of oil
(David, 1992-1993). Terrorist groups operating in the Third World also may
increasingly target US citizens, corporations, diplomatic outposts abroad and
generally symbols associated with the US. These emerging threats make the
Third World of continuing concern to the United States in the post-Cold War
era. Additionally, the emergence of radical anti-American movements and
terrorist groups with explicit anti-American agendas in many Third World
countries poses yet another problem and a reason for the need for the US to
remain involved in the Third World in order to prevent the spread of WMD as
well as to protect US interests abroad.
The US faces much less stable and reliable opponents today than during the
Cold War with a potential to supply WMD to terrorist networks. Indeed, the
recently concluded war in Iraq represents only the first in a series of US
struggles to contain the proliferation of WMD, shut off the potential supply
of lethal technologies to global terrorist networks, and strengthen the
efforts to promote free markets, democracy, rule of law, good governance and
protection of human rights.
As Michael Ignatieff concludes, America has not invested sufficiently in the
post-Cold War era to imposing a new structure (new military alliances, new
legal institutions, and new international development agencies) to be able to
adequately respond to emerging threats and problems (Ignatieff, 2003). Thus,
rather than labeling the current US policy as mere empire-building, I would
argue that this represents a natural response informed by the contemporary
understanding of the threats to international security.
Conclusion
In 1999, the UNSC found itself in a deadlock over the issue of the
authorization of a military humanitarian intervention in Kosovo due to
Russia’s invocation of its veto power. The US-led NATO coalition intervened
regardless of the lack of UNSC authorization and effectively prevented terror
and genocide in Kosovo, which would only add to the region’s social, economic
and political instability. Today, the situation in the region can be assessed
as relatively stabilized and on the way towards greater democratization. It is
actions such as those—illegal yet legitimate—that should prompt the
international community to rethink the still dominant doctrine of
international law upholding the outdated principles of national sovereignty
and territorial integrity as absolute and inviolable rights of states.
International law and collective security arrangements have, however,
consistently failed to prevent major local and regional wars and conflicts
from emerging particularly in the Third World. Equally so, civilians in many
parts of the world continue to be subjected to terror by political elites
struggling to remain in power in undemocratic, illegitimate regimes. The
events of September 11, 2001, and their implications for the framing of global
security policies, further highlighted the vulnerabilities of the
international legal system and shed new light on the emerging threats to
global security in general. Terrorism and WMD acquired a status of truly
global concern requiring immediate actions to more effectively protect
civilians all over the world. As Michael Ignatieff put it, “Terror does not
only present a major threat to civilian populations, but it also attacks
politics and the very prospects for the maintenance of international peace,
stability and prosperity through diplomacy and non-violent means” (Ignatieff,
2003). As such, terrorism constitutes the greater evil. The resort to force by
the international community thus constitutes the lesser evil, which would,
indeed, be fully legitimate and justified if all other non-violent efforts
fail.
The continuing failures of states to protect their citizens from violence
point to two objectives of any global security strategy: the prevention of
intrastate conflicts and state failure, and the elimination of WMD and
terrorism in all of their forms. In this essay, I argued there are limits to
states’ sovereignty quite clearly delineated by the correlative duties and
responsibilities states have towards their citizens and the international
community. Any state’s legal and moral right to claim protection of the norm
of non-intervention is dependent upon it satisfying a certain minimum or basic
standards of humanity. A failure to act responsibly and thus pose security
threats to either own citizens or the international community at large implies
the need for the international community to have tools available to deal with
such states to reduce the threats at hand to the greatest extent possible.
The current Bush administration insists that the framing of US foreign policy
should proceed from a firm ground of the US national interest rather than from
the interest of some illusory international community. In doing so, it follows
the doctrine of “sovereignty as responsibility” in the sense that acts and
measures taken serve first and foremost to protect US citizens at home and
abroad. Essentially, however, the US has an interest in the maintenance of
peace all over the world and particularly among the great powers. This
viewpoint emphasizes that the potential threat to US national security
essentially originates in the capacity of other great powers (but also rogue
states and terrorist groups) to deploy WMD against the US.
As a result, it calls for steps to promote peace among the great powers
through balancing of relative military capabilities, containment, deterrence
and cooperation. Cooperation and friendly-relations among major powers then
implies the possibility of concerted efforts to focus on threats to global
security posed by rogue states and terrorist groups.
Many have argued that the exercise of US power is only legitimate if it is
used on behalf of someone or something else, preferably through multilateral
institutions and organizations such as NATO and the UN. This reflects the
Wilsonian ideal of the need to move from purely national to humanitarian
interests. Although, indeed, there is nothing wrong with the pursuit of
actions benefiting all humanity, according to the current Bush administration,
this would be considered only a second-order effect. Such a selective
engagement approach simply indicates that “America’s pursuit of the national
interest will create conditions that promote freedom, markets, and peace”
(Condoleezza Rice, 2000). Interestingly enough, this worldview also assumes
that other great powers bear identical understanding of contemporary threats
to security, which is not necessarily the case.
I would suggest that these stances of the US towards global security concerns
are seriously taken into consideration in any deliberations on the most
appropriate collective security measures to be implemented to tackle
contemporary threats to global security.
The successful implementation of such a global security policy however depends
on the extent to which major powers are ready, able and willing to cooperate.
Collective action to combat terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is
imperative. In general terms, whenever the US determines an intervention is
required in a given case, it is more expedient for all veto-wielding powers to
support military interventions whenever it can be justified on security or
humanitarian grounds. Engaging with the US by supporting its decision to
intervene will permit the remaining four veto-wielding members of the UNSC to
achieve several goals. First, they can retain a more effective control on US
actions through active engagement in the determination of the conduct of war
as well as post-war rebuilding activities. Second, it creates an opportunity
for these states to advocate and lobby for their own national interests. The
US has shown clear determination of being able, willing and ready to intervene
with or without UNSC authorization. However, even when the US justifications
for intervention may appear to be inherently wrong (i.e. there is no evidence
that WMD are in fact present on the territory), there may be still a room for
maneuver. US foreign policy is multifaceted by its nature and involves a broad
range of justifications, often on security grounds, but also on the grounds of
pervasive and systematic gross violations of human rights, lack of democratic
decision-making mechanisms, weak governance and rule of law. Thus, even when
the case for intervention on security grounds cannot be fully justified, the
mere existence of other threats to human, regional and international security
in the form of, for instance, gross human rights violations or ineffective
state-run economy facing a danger of collapse and thus state failure, can
provide an equally justifiable case for intervention. In turn, this kind of a
division of labor can in fact strengthen the credibility of the international
legal system. In the Iraqi case, we could conclude therefore, that the states
opposing the intervention have in fact missed an opportunity to assert their
roles as promoters of democracy, free markets and human rights.
To tackle effectively contemporary threats to global security as well as to
strengthen the credibility and relevance of the international legal system in
this era of terror, veto-wielding members of the UNSC must be able to find
ways of setting aside their political and ideological differences and through
concerted efforts strive to eliminate terrorism and the capacity of states
defiant of the international legal system to deploy WMD against their
civilians or other states. If all non-violent pre-emptive efforts fail, the
UNSC is obliged to resort to the authorization of force against non-complying
states to prevent an ever greater violence and injustices in the future.
Bibliography
Barry R. Posen; Andre L.
Ross, “Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy”, International
Security, Volume 21, Issue 3 (Winter, 1996 – 1997)
Condoleezza Rice, “Campaign
2000 - Promoting the National Interest”, Foreign Affairs, Jan-Feb
2000 Volume 79, Number 1 (January/February 2000)
Congressional Research
Service – Library of Congress Report RS21314, “International Law and the
Preemptive Use of Force against Iraq”,
http://www.usembassy.fi/pdfiles/RS21314.pdf
Congressional Research
Service – Library of Congress Report RS21311, “U.S. Use of Preemptive Use
of Force”,
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21311.pdf
Frank Bruni, “Berlusconi
too, wants to export democracy”, New York Times/International Herald
Tribune, Friday, December 5, 2003,
http://www.iht.com/articles/120335.html
(December 9, 2003)
Gareth Evans and Mohamed
Sahnoun, “The Responsibility to Protect” Foreign Affairs. New
York: Nov/Dec 2002. Vol. 81, Issue 6
The Responsibility to
Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State
Responsibility, Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Center
(2001) (Available online at http://www.idrc.ca)
Madeleine K. Albright, US
Permanent Representative to the United Nations, “Realism and Idealism in
American Foreign Policy Today”, US Department of State Dispatch, Vol. 5,
No. 26 (June 27, 1994)
Mary Kaldor, New & Old
Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Cambridge: Polity Press;
(1998)
Michael Ignatieff,
“American Empire (Get Used to It)”, New York Times Magazine, Jan. 5, 2003
Michael Ignatieff, “The
Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror”, Macalester College
Mitau Lecture, April 24, 2003
“Remarks to the United
Nations Security Council in New York City”, Jan. 31, 1992
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1992/92013100.html (December 6,
2003)
Steve Smith, “The End of
the Unipolar Moment? September 11 and the Future of World Order”, London:
SAGE Publications (2002)
Steven Everts, “Two
cheers for the EU’s new security strategy”, International Herald Tribune,
December 9, 2003,
http://www.iht.com/articles/120673.html
(December 9, 2003)
Steven R. David, “Why the
Third World Still Matters”, International Security, Vol. 17, No. 3
(Winter, 1992-1993)
The White House: Office of
the Press Secretary, For Immediate Release, “President Bush Delivers
Graduation Speech at West Point” (Jun. 1, 2002)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html
(December 6, 2003)
The White House, Office of
the Press Secretary, “Official Statement by the President” (December
11, 2002)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021211-8.html
(December 6, 2003)
Thomas Buergenthal,
Public International Law in a Nutshell, Saint Paul: West Group, 3rd
Edition (August 1, 2002)
United Nations Security
Council, “Note by the President of the Council”, S/23500, January 31,
1992
The White House,
“National Security Strategy”,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
(December 8, 2003)
The White House,
“National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction”,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/WMDStrategy.pdf
(December 8, 2003)
Richard W. Stevenson,
“Bush Revises Rationale for Iraq War,” International Herald Tribune/ New
York Times, December 18, 2003,
http://www.iht.com/articles/122022.html
(December 19, 2003)
Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law.
For an analysis of international law and preemptive force see CRS Report
RS21314, International Law and the Preemptive Use of Force Against Iraq.
For historical information on the preemptive use of force by the U.S.,
see CRS Report RS21311,
U.S. Use of
Preemptive Use of Force.