- Ohio university quiz implies atheists are naturally smarter than Christians
- Rep. Henry Cuellar on border crisis: ‘Playing defense on the one-yard line’
- Activists vow to occupy fast-food restaurants to get higher pay
- Rep. Luis Gutierrez: Senate Dems wary of immigration politics
- Summer camp for 1 percenters: Sushi, limos and shopping at FAO Schwarz
- Colorado gun crackdown law found to be built on faulty data
- Hank Aaron steps to fundraising plate for Democrat Michelle Nunn
- ISIL terrorists blow up burial site of Jonah, vow more of same
- Impeach Obama, say 35 percent in new poll
- Taliban yank 14 Shiites off bus, bind and shoot them on Afghan road
U.N. panel to frame guidelines on legality of pre-emptive strike
Question of the Day
Members of an international panel studying United Nations’ operations say the group hopes to lay down clear rules declaring when it is legal for a nation to use pre-emptive military force in its own defense.
The issue grows out of the international controversy over the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq without a final U.N. Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing the war, said panel member Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia.
“I expect the panel to be giving close consideration to what those rules are and how they should be applied and whether an effort should be made to identify generally agreed criteria for the legitimate use of force, whatever the context,” Mr. Evans said during a recent appearance at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.
He made his remarks before last week’s presidential debate in which Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry’s call for a “global test” on when pre-emptive action is justified became a campaign issue.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan established the 16-member High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in November to study ways to reform the 59-year-old organization so it can better address 21st-century threats to security and peace.
But Mr. Evans, currently president of the International Crisis Group think tank, said much of the panel’s work has focused on establishing detailed guidelines for the use of military force.
“A central reason for our appointment was concern that the U.N., and indeed the whole multilateral security system, was really at a crossroads with the resurgence of unilateralism from you know whom, and increasing willingness to bypass the Security Council,” Mr. Evans said in a clear reference to the Bush administration.
The lone American on the panel, retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, voiced surprise at Mr. Evans decision to discuss the panel’s work publicly and said it was premature to conclude what will be in the final report.
Nevertheless, Gen. Scowcroft said he does not expect that the panel’s recommendations will rule out pre-emptive military action.
“I think if we end up dealing with the issue of pre-emption I would speculate that there will not be an attempt to ban it but an attempt to define and set parameters and guidelines,” said Gen. Scowcroft, a former national security adviser to President Ford and the first President Bush.
The legality of pre-emptive action has been at issue since Mr. Annan told a British Broadcasting Corp. interviewer last month that he considered the invasion of Iraq to be “illegal” within the context of the U.N. system.
President Bush defended his decision in an address to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 21, citing a series of U.N. resolutions passed prior to the war that promised “serious consequences” if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein failed to disarm.
Mr. Kerry, during his debate with Mr. Bush on Thursday, said he supported the right of a president to order a pre-emptive strike but that it must pass “the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”
Mr. Bush countered the next day that this would give foreign governments a veto over U.S. national security decisions.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an interview at The Washington Times last month, stressed that the U.S. Constitution authorizes the United States to act in its own self-defense without U.N. approval.
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- Presidents of Honduras, Guatemala blame U.S. for border children crisis
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- EDITORIAL: Detroit's water 'spigot bigots'
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- Brian Kelly, Notre Dame ready for different route to title
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- PRUDEN: The Democratic-wannabe mice under Hillary Clinton's feet
- Tom Petty: 'No one's got Christ more wrong than the Christians'
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq