Coalitions
of the Willing
By Dr Shireen M. Mazari
Post-9/11, the United
States, along with its allies, has pushed forward
an interesting approach to getting through its global
agendas, when international consensus for them is
not forthcoming, through the UN Security Council.
This approach of forming "coalitions of the
willing" to bypass the UNSC was most starkly
reflected in the invasion of Iraq; but it is also
being reflected in the Proliferation Security Initiative
(PSI) and the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactors (ITER) project, which India was invited
to join last December and as a result of which India
will now have free access to thermonuclear technology.
This is a most dangerous trend of global interventions
and a group of states allocating to themselves certain
international prerogatives outside of the framework
of the UNSC and international law, and it may well
be operationalized in the context of the Iran nuclear
issue.
Clearly, the US, France and the UK have been unable
to convince Russia and China on the need to push
through an open-ended UNSC resolution censuring
Iran which would leave the way open for sanctions
almost automatically. So now, the EU is seeking
to make some "attractive" proposals to
Iran. If Iran rejects these offers then we may see
the EU and US using this as a pretext for imposing
penalties outside of the UNSC.
In fact, at present, the US seems to be unwilling
to accept the international community's desire for
dialogue between itself and Iran. UN Secretary General,
Kofi Annan's call for the same has found no positive
response from the US, reflecting once again its
disregard for the views of the international community.
In any event, it seems a little absurd for the US
to refuse to accept calls for a dialogue from the
Iranian side, given that so far there are only alleged
violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
on the part of Iran.
This is in complete contrast to the North Korean
case where the country left the NPT and declared
it had acquired nuclear weapons. In response to
this open challenge to the NPT, the US accepted
the Chinese initiative of six-party talks, which
are presently stalled. Despite this, the US has
continued in efforts to restart the talks rather
than seeking recourse to the UNSC.
So why is the US not prepared to talk directly through
multilateral talks with Iran? And, equally important,
why is the EU not pushing for such talks instead
of simply trying to act as US surrogates when Iran
knows only too well that the EU cannot make any
commitment on behalf of the US? Should we assume
that the difference between North Korea and Iran
is the religious factor; or should we believe that
the US is still suffering from an Iran trauma post-revolution
and the hostage crisis?
Of course, if traumas can be so long lasting then
Iran would have equal reason to desist from any
contact with the US, given how the US intervened
to overthrow a nationalist Iranian government and
install the monarchy in Tehran! In any event, the
US seemed quite willing to talk with Tehran during
the Bonn process meetings on Afghanistan and also
apparently on Iraq. Finally, on this issue, with
the US now having itself contravened Articles I
and III:2 of the NPT by signing the nuclear deal
with India, how can it penalize Iran for alleged
violations?
Whatever the case, the latest EU move of making
yet another "offer" to Iran to forego
effectively its rights under the NPT, seems a first
step towards moving against Iran outside of the
UNSC framework and therefore should be viewed with
caution. After all, the EU knows Iran will not give
up its right to low grade enrichment of uranium
as allowed for under the NPT, so their demand that
Iran halt all enrichment is neither fair nor plausible
-- especially since many other NPT signatories like
Japan, Australia and European states themselves
also enrich uranium. What would have been more relevant
was to get Iran to ratify the Additional Protocol
and to resume observing its clauses as it had been
doing earlier without the ratification. After all,
it should be incumbent on all states to abide by
all their international commitments, including treaty
commitments.
Or else, the EU could offer talks on the model of
the six-party talks involving the US, Russia, China,
North Korea and its two important neighbors, South
Korea and Japan. With Iran, the talks could involve
the EU, the US, Russia and China -- and perhaps
the UN Secretary General. The fact that the EU and
the US are simply not prepared for dialogue on the
nuclear issue with Iran shows a mala fide intent
to create a scenario where a coalition of the willing
can be put together to deal with Iran punitively
-- something the international community through
the UNSC is not prepared to accept at present.
It is in this context of the notion of coalitions
of the willing that the new course being charted
by NATO should also be a cause for concern for the
international community, especially Asian states
because this seems to be the new operational theatre
being sought by NATO. Given that NATO's membership
remains European and Atlantic, are these states
going to decide on the strategic dynamics of Asia?
It seems NATO is going to be one of the instrumentalities
for carrying out the agendas of future coalitions
of the willing -- as long as NATO consensus can
be acquired, which was not possible in Iraq!
Some in Pakistan feel NATO offers possibilities
for Pakistan through cooperative agreements but
what will happen if such an agreement compels Pakistan
to cooperate with NATO against one of its neighbors
in the future -- be it Iran or even China in the
distant future? A visiting Polish dignitary, on
a recent visit to Islamabad, made a public statement
that NATO was looking at the notion of expeditionary
forces being sent to various parts of the world.
This expansion of the NATO agenda, from one of a
limited collective defense organization to a collective
security organization, with restrictive membership,
has no legitimacy in international law or international
norms today, since the UNSC is the only international
collective security organization sanctioned by the
international community.
The argument that NATO functions more effectively
because it has better resources and so on, does
not hold since member states of the UN have chosen
to deny this capability to the UN through the Security
Council despite Chapter VII, Articles 42-47, which
include provisions for a UN Military Staff Committee.
To keep the UNSC without its teeth and then rationalize
the expanding agenda and operational milieu of NATO
seems a self-serving intent on the part of the US,
France and Britain.
No matter what the lures may be in the short term
regarding NATO and coalitions of the willing, for
states like Pakistan moving outside of the framework
of the UN is wrought with problems since coalitions
of the willing observe no international norms or
laws except those, if any, that may suit their agendas
at a particular time even as they undermine international
consensus and the legitimacy of the UN and its organs.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
