UN finds itself in double jeopardy

The US had gone to Iraq war without authorisation from the United Nations Security Council. This she did on the back of an ultimatum issued to the UNSC that if it failed to give green light to a hell-bent US attack on Baghdad, she would go it alone. The idiom was unheard of in the realm of international relations.

The UN charter allows for military action for the purpose of self-defence. Only on being attacked can a country exercise the option, and rightly so, because otherwise it would mean commission of open aggression against and a blatant invasion of another state. In the extraordinary event that a state or two decided to use force to preempt broader threats to international peace and security it would be of paramount importance that the UN authorisation was sought and received. The legitimacy for such a course of action could only be provided by the UN; under no circumstances, could it be self-arrogated. And, this should apply all the more in case of a leading power as a safeguard against arbitrary use of force by a strong nation against a weaker one.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

George Bush and Tony Blair waged a war against Iraq on the sole plea that if they had not done so, the latter would have launched 'an armed attack with weapons of mass destruction' on whom is anybody's guess. The myth of Iraq's possession of WMD has been roundly demolished by the latest series of disclosures from authoritative sources and independent studies. This is live electoral ammo in the hands of opposition to both Bush and Blair. So, there is a post-facto de-legitimisation of the war on top of its having been launched without UN approval in the first place.

All these pose a serious challenge to the fundamentals of the UN system as its secretary general Kofi Annan has emphatically stated.

Whereas the rifts between global powers caused by the Iraq war are yet to be healed, the cleavage has widened all the more following Bush's latest overture in the UNGA to have other countries commit troops to keep peace in Iraq and funds to help its reconstruction process. Even some allies of the US-British entente have linked the issue of troops deployment to a consensual UN resolution on the subject. They insisted on such UN cover to placate their home constituencies where American actions have been unpopular, to say the least. France has demanded that sovereignty be restored to the Iraqi people in nine to ten months' time before she can take part in the reconstruction process. Germany may be less caustic in words but has a similar response to the issue.

Two issues are involved here: first one is of principles; and the second relates to how we make the UN functionally effective. Both are basically intertwined. The US took unilateral and pre-emptive action against Iraq on a perceived threat. All the three words -- unilateral, pre-emptive and perceived -- are antithetical and repugnant to rule of law which binds the comity of nations under a civilised framework of conduct and relationships.

If the doctrine of pre-emptive strike is allowed to rule the roost then all countries with inimical inter-relationships or having some reservations or misgivings against each other could invoke the option in a free-for-all thereby upsetting the regional or international equilibrium beyond redemption. In theory, China and India or India and Pakistan could be candidates for such an absurd recourse to force against each other. Sometime ago, Australia alleged intrusion of terrorists from Malaysia and Singapore. Does it mean she would take 'a pre-emptive action'? There is absolutely no rationale for such an awkward and highly reprehensible prospect for unilateral action against any country.