The World At A Crossroads

BY TURGUT TARHANLI
RADIKAL- Columnist Turgut Tarhanli comments on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s address to the General Assembly on Tuesday. A summary of his column is as follows:
Every year, the UN General Assembly’s opening meeting is held at the end of September, and member states usually send their top representatives to this important gathering. This year was no different.
About a month ago, over a dozen UN personnel, including Special Envoy Sergio Vieria de Mello, were murdered by a massive car bomb at the UN’s Baghdad headquarters. Naturally, world leaders were expected to express their grief at this horrific attack. But in his speech to the General Assembly, you could clearly see US President George W. Bush shedding crocodile tears. Bush of course couldn’t pass up the opportunity to take advantage of this tragic incident, considering how for the last two years his administration has cynically used the ‘war against terrorism’ as its motto as well as a pretext for military interventions worldwide. The Bush administration has started to lay down pavement for a road leading the UN straight into a dead end. Fully aware of this, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan clearly expressed that the world was now at a crossroads. ‘The unilateralism of recent events has … brought the international community to a fork in the road, portending a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the UN was founded,’ he told the General Assembly, criticizing the US’ preemptive war doctrine. The problem is, in fact, not limited to the terrorism issue. The world can fight violations of international law as long as such ‘breaches of law’ are clearly defined. However, the problem now is that the US defines new rules for its new doctrine, thus unilaterally rejecting the established ones. Annan said that the doctrine of preemptive action posed a fundamental threat to the UN’s principles. Recalling that the UN Charter allows states to defend themselves if attacked, he added, ‘But until now it has been understood that when states go beyond that, and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the UN. Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an “armed attack” with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group. Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, states have the right and obligation to use force preemptively, even on the territory of other states, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still be developed. My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification.’
Annan’s speech underlined how the international community should look at recent developments with a view to building a better future for the world. Thus world leaders will have to choose between ‘legitimacy and the rule of law’ and ‘the use of brutal force.’ At this point, we need to ask ourselves: Which path will our officials support? Where is Turkey standing at this particular crossroads?