|
Tuesday, 13 June 2006 20:00 |
| Dr. Jerry Pubantz
|
By JIM GENARO
The Bush administration??s doctrine of pre-emptive war has created a dangerous divergence from the practice of collective security on which the United Nations is based, Dr. Jerry Pubantz told a meeting of the Western North Carolina chapter of the United Nations Association last Saturday.
Pubantz, who is a professor of political science at UNC Greensboro and co-editor of the ?®Encyclopedia of the United Nations,?∆ addressed about 50 people at UNC Asheville??s Reuter Center as part of the John E. Fobes Memorial Lecture series.
The
annual lecture is given in honor of Fobes, who was a diplomat and the
former head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization.
?®I hope I can bring you good news today, but we??re going to have to go
through a little fire and brimstone before we get there,?∆ Pubantz told
the audience. ?®We have been through a particularly difficult period
within the past 10 years in terms of U.S.-U.N. relations.?∆
The U.S. is currently ?®holding the budget of the U.N. hostage,?∆ he
noted in a standoff over Washington??s desire to see the international
body reformed.
Even under the first President Bush, Pubantz said, the authority of the U.N. was respected.
The elder Bush,
who once referred to the U.N. as ?®the last, best chance for peace,?∆ has
said that he chose not to remove Saddam Hussein from power during the
first Gulf War because he did not have a U.N. mandate to do so, Pubantz
noted.
However, under the current administration, relations have hit an all-time low between the U.S. and the U.N., he said.
This is unfortunate, Pubantz noted, because the two bodies share a
?®symmetry of goals,?∆ including democratization, globalization and human
rights.
?®The most lethal challenge to the United Nations is the theoretical and
practical challenges of the American doctrine of pre-emption,?∆ he said.
This doctrine, which was outlined by President Bush in June 2002,
states that the U.S. will use pre-emptive war as a means of addressing
potential threats, even if such threats are not immediate or certain.
Pubantz quoted Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield as saying of the
doctrine, ?®We have to defeat threats that we don??t even know exist ??
and even those that don??t exist.?∆
Iraq has been the first testing ground of this new doctrine, which
diverges from the long-standing tradition of collective security, by
which all U.N. member-states agree to refrain from initiating war
against other member-states, he said.
?®The U.N. was created precisely to limit any country from acting on its own,?∆ Pubantz explained.
The events that took place during fall 2002 represent ?®one of the great altercations of the U.N.??s history,?∆ he added.
During this period, the Bush administration sought U.N. approval of its
plan to use military force against Iraq. Opposition on the part of
several Security Council members ?? most notably France, Germany and
Russia ?? led to a compromise in the form of U.N. Resolution 1441, which
declared Hussein??s government to be ?®in breach of past resolutions and
assured serious consequences?∆ if he refused to disarm, while still
allowing U.N. weapons inspectors another chance to ensure Iraq had
disarmed, Pubantz said.
By opposing Washington??s militant stance, the European nations ?®hoped
to clip the wings of the world??s sole remaining hegemonic power,?∆ he
added.
When the U.S. eventually went to war with Iraq ?? ?®a war that has been
to this day more a failure than a success,?∆ Pubantz said, ?? it created
a crisis for the U.N.
?®The League of Nations passed due to ineffectiveness,?∆ he noted. If
pre-emptive war becomes the norm, the ?®U.N. would die due to two
competing doctrines.?∆
Though the U.N. charter acknowledges the right to defend itself from an
imminent attack, the Bush doctrine would allow nations to attack a
perceived enemy even if no immediate threat existed, Pubantz said.
?®If every country uses pre-emption, then pre-emption goes by different
name: aggression,?∆ he added. ?®No leader goes before his people and
says, ?¥Tomorrow we go to war for aggression.?? Even Hitler, when he
invaded Poland, said it was self-defense.?∆
In the aftermath of World War II, the world, led by the U.S., sought to
prevent such pre-emptive warfare by adapting collective security as the
overarching model of diplomacy between nations, Pubantz explained.
However, this only works if the most powerful countries are willing to
abstain from initiating wars, he added.
One positive development in foreign relations was the response to the
tsunami that struck much of South East Asia in 2004, Pubantz said.
?®Every country in the region quickly made the choice to turn relief
efforts over to the U.N.?∆
However, he said, ?®At heart, the policy of the current administration has not changed.?∆
This policy replaces ?®a policy of achieving peace through the
prevention of war to a policy of achieving peace through preventative
war,?∆ he said, quoting a scholar friend of his.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anan has devised a series of
recommendations for reforming the organization, including the creation
of a peace-building council. However, at the most recent World Summit,
U.N. officials rejected all but a few of these recommendations, Pubantz
said.
He suggested that one solution to the current quagmire is for the U.N.
to start looking at ways to engage in preventive conflict resolution.
?®Must we wait until there is an actual use of force ?? especially with
such horrible weapons ?? before we act??∆
Rather, the U.N. could benefit from ?® a more activist Security Council,
committed to defending standards of acceptable behavior,?∆ Pubantz said.
These issues are currently being tested again in the standoff between
the West and Iran over the latter??s nuclear energy program. Throughout
the negotiations, ?®the U.S. has insisted on keeping all options on the
table, while European leaders seek to take the military option off the
table,?∆ he noted.
However the Bush
administration has now agreed to a draft security council resolution
that many observers are calling a compromise.
Russia particularly sought to ensure that the language of the
resolution specified its authority as being based on Chapter 7, Article
42 of the U.N. Charter, which authorizes ?®every option short of
military force,?∆ Pubantz told the audience.
?®By these recent moves by the administration, there is some understanding that the fork in the road has to be closed a little.?∆
Pubantz also said that he ?®takes heart in the fact that there are 16
(U.N.) peacekeeping missions with 66,000 employees on every continent.?∆
Another encouraging development, he noted, is the recent report by
Sweden??s independently formed Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission.
This report stated that ?®these weapons have little place in a world of
collective security.?∆
This report represents a global political shift that has many countries
considering the elimination of WMDs to be their end goal, rather than
merely adhering to the non-proliferation treaties that have been the
hallmark of diplomatic negotiations over the past several decades, he
said.
However, the most positive development in the U.N. in recent years has
been the involvement of private citizens in its organization, Pubantz
argued.
?®I think it??s not just a matter of political will in terms of the
governments on the Security Council, but with individuals and private
groups,?∆ he said. ?®Over the last 20 years, the U.N. has gone through a
tremendous democratization effort internally.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
