|
|
December 10, 2004/Kislev 27 5765, Vol. 57, No.15
Proposed U.N. reform holds promise, peril for Israel
MICHAEL J. JORDAN
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
NEW YORK - It was only three years ago that Iran's influential ex-president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, urged the Islamic world to develop nuclear weapons in order to annihilate Israel.
It might seem like nothing more than inflated rhetoric. But add the fact that many believe Tehran is stringing the West along while it races to produce a nuclear weapon, and is funneling all sorts of weaponry and money to terrorist groups that attack Israel, and Rafsanjani's words take on a far more sinister cast.
Still, would that be enough for Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran under a proposal for United Nations reform that would allow states to lash out against "latent" threats to their security?
The United Nations released a series of recommendations last week aimed at making its Security Council more responsive to the "nightmare scenarios" confronting the world - a combustible cocktail of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction and irresponsible states.
Significantly, the new proposal goes beyond the U.N. Charter, which outlines a member state's right to self-defense against "imminent" threats. If adopted, the proposal for the first time would endorse preventive action against latent threats as well.
Given the U.N.'s often hostile stance toward Israel - and after Washington skirted a bitterly divided Security Council to invade Iraq last year - many are skeptical that the council ever would unite in support of a pre-emptive Israeli attack.
A spokesperson for Israel's U.N. mission refused to comment until the report had been fully reviewed. But one U.N. source, who requested anonymity, said, "When it comes to a latent threat, the threshold would be so high" that a country would never get international backing "to make it legal."
"If Israel were to act unilaterally," the source said, "it would be considered a pariah and to have engaged in an illegal action. The whole theory is, even if there's a latent threat you'd still need global consensus and for the council to approve it. So for all practical purposes, we're in the same place we started."
Indeed, the reform proposal reaffirms the centrality of the council as final arbiter in matters of war and peace.
Therein lies the rub for Israel: Of the five permanent, veto-bearing Security Council members - the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia and China - only the United States is particularly supportive of Israeli actions, often brandishing its veto to defend Israel from one-sided condemnation.
Nothing in the new report - titled "A More Secure World" - suggests the break-up of that core quintet, as only Russia has seemed willing to extend veto power to additional nations.
In March, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is expected to issue his own recommendations in response to the report. Then the report - produced by a 16-member panel that included former U.S. national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeni Primakov, former Chinese Vice-Premier Qian Qichen, and Amr Moussa, an Egyptian diplomat who heads the Arab League - will come up for debate in the fall when the U.N. General Assembly convenes for its 60th annual session.
Much attention will center on the report's five "criteria of legitimacy" for using force: seriousness of the threat, proper purpose, last resort, proportional means and balance of consequences.
However, the devil is in the details, critics say: Each criterion is vague enough that it will be open to interpretation and politicization.
|
|
