U.N. Addresses Global Security Issues

A report by 16 prominent world figures on reforming the United Nations and improving the way its members respond to global threats says that preemptive military strikes for self-defense are legitimate, but that any final decision on such action rests with the Security Council.

The report, commissioned by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, also upholds the international community’s duty to intervene in any state where the government is unable or unwilling to protect its people, and offers two proposals for expanding the Security Council.

Annan asked the high-level panel to examine issues of collective security in September 2003, after the United States led an invasion of Iraq without the Security Council’s blessing. In a speech to the General Assembly then, he said the United Nations was in a crisis and needed to be radically reformed to remain the main theater for multilateral security.

“We have reached a fork in the road ... a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the U.N. was founded,” he told the leaders of 191 nations at the time.

Annan said he wanted a fresh look at how to deal with new threats posed by terrorist networks, the illicit spread of nuclear weapons technology and the persistent threats of disease and poverty that affect most people’s sense of security every day.

The report, portions of which were provided to the Los Angeles Times, is intended to jump-start discussions among governments so the issues can be addressed at the 60th anniversary session of the General Assembly in September.

In Crawford, Texas, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said she did not think administration officials had had a chance to review the panel’s findings, but indicated that President Bush would take a dim view of any measures that impinged on what he saw as the administration’s right to extinguish threats to the United States.

“The president has made his views clear on the nation’s right to defend itself,” she said.

Some of the report’s conclusions are likely to be unpopular in Washington, amid rising sentiment that the world body is hindering rather than aiding U.S. interests.

Annan’s assessment two months ago that the Iraq invasion was illegal and his recent letter warning Bush that a U.S.-led assault on the Iraqi city of Fallouja would alienate Iraqis and make elections more difficult have raised hackles in the White House and among some in Congress.

Despite polls showing that the majority of Americans support the U.N. as an institution, recent allegations of corruption involving its “oil-for-food” program in Iraq and revelations of sexual exploitation by peacekeepers and U.N. officials in Congo have damaged the world organization’s image.

U.N. officials hope that the report will help the organization recover traction and move to the center of a global discussion about security.

Annan chose the 16 people serving on the High Level Panel for Threats, Challenges and Change for their experience in world affairs and ability to promote the report’s conclusions. They included former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny M. Primakov, former U.N. refugee chief Sadako Ogata and former U.S. national security advisor Brent Scowcroft.

Stanford professor Stephen Stedman guided their research and compiled the report.

In the section expected to be the most controversial, the report tries to set benchmarks for judging the legitimacy of using force preemptively or preventively for self-defense.

It says that before preemptive military action, there should be a review to determine whether force is the last and best resort.

The report says that force is legitimate if an endangered state, backed by the Security Council, decides that a threat is serious and imminent; every nonmilitary option has been explored; the state has assessed the means, duration and scale of the strike needed to meet the threat and has no hidden agenda; and the military moves would not create consequences that are worse than the threatened action.

The panel did not recommend broadening the interpretation of the U.N. Charter on using force for self-defense to explicitly include preemptive action, as Washington had hoped. But it also did not restrict the reasons justifying use of force to actual attacks, as Washington had feared.

The charter now permits the use of force in self-defense if an attack occurs, or if authorized by the Security Council in the event of a threat to world peace.

The U.N. also accepts a preemptive strike if an attack is “imminent.”

In a bow to the United States, the report urges the Security Council to consider backing early action against “urgent but non-imminent” threats, such as terrorist groups that are pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

The panel also proposed two options for making the Security Council more effective and representative.

The current 15-member body, which makes key security decisions for the world, was formed just after World War II. Its five permanent, veto-wielding members represent the power brokers of that time: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. The other 10 members serve two-year terms.

A new configuration for the council, the panel hopes, would make the decision-making process more representative of the power centers over the next 50 years.

Both proposals would expand the number of seats to 24 -- six each for Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas -- with criteria for new membership based on how much the states contribute financially, militarily and diplomatically to the U.N. and its programs.

The report says the new structure should also be representative of the broader global population, especially in the developing world; should increase democracy and accountability; and should not impair the effectiveness of the Security Council.

The first proposal would create six more permanent seats and three nonpermanent, two-year seats. India, Brazil, Japan and Germany are likely to be among the nations considered for permanent seats. The report does not specify whether the new permanent members should also have veto power.

The second proposal -- a three-tier system -- suggests that instead of additional permanent members, there should be eight seats filled for four-year renewable terms, and an additional group of two-year, nonpermanent seats.

Countries that believe they deserve a seat at the main table of international security decisions but that probably would not win a spot under the first option are lobbying heavily for the second. They include Pakistan, Italy, Indonesia and Mexico.

The panel also offered a definition of terrorism, which has been an unresolved debate within the world body. Arab states in particular have argued against labeling as terrorists some groups that they consider freedom fighters.

The panel, which included Arab League chief Amr Moussa, agreed that any politically motivated violence against civilians should be considered a terrorist act.

*

Times staff writer Warren Vieth in Crawford contributed to this report.

*

(Begin Text of Infobox)

U.N. panel

*

The 16 leading officials and experts from around the world who served on the High Level Panel for Threats, Challenges and Change were chosen by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan for their experience in world affairs and ability to promote the panel’s conclusions. They are:

*

Anand Panyarachun, chairman (Thailand)

Robert Badinter (France)

Gro Harlem Brundtland (Norway)

Mary Chinery-Hesse (Ghana)

Gareth Evans (Australia)

David Hannay (Britain)

Enrique Iglesias (Uruguay)

Amr Moussa (Egypt)

Satish Nambiar (India)

Sadako Ogata (Japan)

Yevgeny M. Primakov (Russia)

Qian Qichen (China)

Nafis Sadiq (Pakistan)

Salim Ahmed Salim (Tanzania)

Brent Scowcroft (United States)

Joao Baena Soares (Brazil)

*

Los Angeles Times