Due to the events of recent years – especially the 9/11 terrorist attack on the U.S – peace and security have moved to the forefront of global issues. The 9/11 tragedy has made everyone realize how serious the danger of international terrorism is. This form of terrorism manifested itself in the worst possible form: a self-sufficient organization that is not connected to any state and which seeks to become an independent international player. The terrorist organization al Qaeda, which is not supported officially by any state, stands to win this menacing position in the world.

The threatening goal of this organization has been explicitly expressed by its leader Osama bin Laden – to create a single Islamic caliphate. The method for achieving the declared goal is to destroy the secular regimes in the Moslem-populated countries (such as Turkey, for example), as well as the moderately secular states (Saudi Arabia). At the same time, bin Laden has declared a “merciless war” on the United States, which he argues supports such regimes, as well as on those countries that oppose extremist Islamic groups advocating the ideas of separatism.

The demarcation line between al Qaeda and traditional international players does not run along the civilizational-religious axis. The confronting sides are composed of the dangerous extremist movements, which are preaching a medieval “zoological” attitude toward peoples and nations, and the rest of the world that is guided by the values of modern civilization.

International terrorism has acquired a fundamentally new form and is now becoming dangerously intertwined with many traditional threats:

• the threat of WMD proliferation, which has been aggravated by a real possibility of its coalescence with international terrorism;
• unsettled regional conflicts, especially that in the Middle East, which create an attractive ground for the spread of international terrorism;
• the ominous existence of ‘failed states’ where the authorities are incapable of preventing humanitarian catastrophes, genocide, mass exodus of refugees, etc;
• narcotics trafficking as a source of financing international terrorism;
• religious extremism (not fundamentalism, but precisely extremism), which in some countries is teaming up with international terrorism, and thereby inflaming separatism (this factor has already had its destabilizing effect in some states and may lead to even more disastrous consequences);
• the threat of the world being divided along the civilizational-religious axis, which has manifested itself in sweeping attacks against Islam as a “dangerous” religion which are splitting the world community, spurring terrorist acts and undermining efforts to counter international terrorism.

There is a real threat that international terrorism may use globalization, as well as scientific and technological progress, for carrying out its attacks.

A “HIERARCHY OF THREATS”  IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

The newly emerging challenges to mankind are creating a fundamentally different international environment that requires new approaches to the security problems of individual states and the global community as a whole. It is necessary to determine what these approaches should be.

Some politicians and pundits divide the threats into ‘hard’ and ‘soft.’ On the one hand, there are threats to security that emerge either as a result of aggressive actions by another state or as a consequence of an unstable situation. On the other hand, there are the so-called ‘soft’ threats: poverty, diseases, unemployment, etc. It is argued that the UN should fight against the soft threats since its mechanism is not tailored to a rapid and efficient reaction to security threats.
However, such conclusions are groundless.

First, the UN Charter provides for all possible ways to collectively counteract threats to security and stability. True, the UN Security Council has sometimes failed to optimally use its authority, while its efficiency should be improved on the basis of coordinated agreements. However, in practical terms, the Security Council has proven that it is able to assume a fundamentally new approach to applying provisions of the UN Charter. For example, following 9/11 the Security Council provided an essentially new interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter which provides for the use of force in self-defense in case of an attack by a non-state entity. Furthermore, the UN Security Council endorsed sanctions against the Taliban movement and created the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC). It has made decisions on the use of force in support of democracy and human rights (for example, in its Resolution 940 of July 31, 1994, the Security Council authorized all member countries “to form a multi-national force… and use all necessary means” to restore democracy in Haiti).

The Security Council has demonstrated its ability to adapt to new challenges and threats, and this international body has a major responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. So, there is no need to bypass the Security Council in taking decisive steps or implementing use-of-force actions.

Second, the ongoing events in Iraq graphically demonstrate the shortcomings of those tactics that ignore the UN and rely, instead, on unilateral actions. It is noteworthy that after the failure of the U.S. operation in Iraq, those who only recently were obsessed with the idea of unilateralism – that is, the independent and preventive use-of-force actions that ignore the UN and are regarded as “legitimate” – are now returning to this international organization. It has become obvious that the U.S. has no chance of extricating itself from the Iraqi deadlock without assistance from the UN.

Third, it is counterproductive to build a hierarchy of threats, or set them into opposition; threats are interrelated. Although international terrorism is not directly rooted in poverty, which is the fate of the majority of people on the planet, it is, to a large extent, the result of the past, or present, discriminatory policies toward those who live beyond the ‘golden billion’ countries. Discrimination – whether it is political, economic or cultural in nature – nurtures terrorism.

Fourth, the significance of the various threats is viewed differently in different parts of the world. In Africa, for example, the main threat is considered to be AIDS, which is responsible for approximately 30 million deaths. In actuality, many countries beyond the golden billion are threatened not by terrorism but by diseases, poverty and hunger.

ON THE EFFICIENCY OF THE MULTILATERAL MECHANISM

Under the UN Charter (Chapter VII), the Security Council is responsible for determining the presence of a threat, an act of aggression or a violation of the peace. It also considers measures that should be taken to maintain and restore international peace and security. And, finally, it organizes and implements these measures, including urgent military actions.

The UN Charter directly mentions the possibility of taking compulsory measures as preventive means (Article 50). At the same time, the Charter does not contain the criteria for resorting to the use of compulsory measures, including preventive ones. Therefore, it is necessary to define such criteria. The following is a list of those circumstances which should require coercive actions from the UN Security Council:

• an acute humanitarian crisis, such as the mass murder of civilians, gross violations of international humanitarian law, rights to life and property, and the mass exodus of refugees. More often than not such circumstances occur in tandem with the collapse of a country’s central government or a severe internal conflict;
• inability of the central government to take control over non-state entities that operate on the country’s territory and pose a threat to international security;
•  violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, especially if there is a possibility of nuclear arms being transferred to a terrorist organization;
• any state harboring international terrorist organizations which are found to be launching large-scale terrorist acts against other states (in this case the state under attack also has the right to self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter).

Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the “criteria of interference” can be approved by a resolution of the UN Security Council. At the same time, there is no need to make amendments to the Charter itself. The abovementioned circumstances are not related to shortcomings of the UN Charter, but to flagrant violations of its provisions and those documents which were adopted to improve it.

Naturally, specific circumstances will require detailed consideration before there can be any legitimate interference in a state’s internal affairs. The possibility of such interference should not be ruled out in situations where there is a regional or international threat to peace and security. This premise does not mean a rejection of the principle of states’ sovereignty per se, rather, it emphasizes that the ban on interference in a state’s internal affairs is firm unless internal developments there present a real threat to either part or all of the global community. What’s more, preventive interference cannot be undertaken if it is based on a party’s subjective decision concerning the threat level of a particular regime, or on the decision to implement a unilateral use of force. Both the determination of the threat level and the resolution on the use of force should only be based on a joint decision.

The preventive use of force should be preceded by a UN demand that the government of the state in question should take urgent measures to stop activities that threaten the global community. A refusal or inability to meet this demand should be taken by the Security Council as the basis for sanctioning coercive – use-of-force or non-use-of-force – measures. Accepting the possibility of using force in principle, the world community should specify that any intervention by force is permissible in strictly limited situations as a last resort and only following a decision by the UN Security Council. Any subsequent actions must be under control of the Security Council and with full observance of international law.

The decisions of the Security Council should be based on apparent and uncontestable facts, as well as proven information. The unfortunate experience of military action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Iraq, unauthorized by the UN Security Council, proves that establishing facts for justifying the use of force was the weakest point. It is in our common interest to give this factor most serious consideration.

ADAPTING MULTILATERAL STRUCTURES TO NEW THREATS

Raising the efficiency of the UN Security Council is of primary importance. The combination of two principles – justice and UN capability – may be used as a conceptual approach to this problem. Of course, the composition and structure of the Security Council, which emerged as a result of the disposition of forces after WWII, cannot remain intact forever. The time has long passed since Germany and Japan were set apart from the rest of the world by their defeat in the war. Since the UN came into existence 60 years ago, other crucial changes have taken place in the world, as well. A significant number of former colonies and semi-colonies have turned into sovereign states; today they play an active and independent role in international politics, while enhancing their status in the global economy (India stands as a good example).

It is imperative that the composition of the UN Security Council be brought into line with the present-day realities. Therefore, the primary goal is to increase the number of its permanent and non-permanent members. Furthermore, there should be stricter observance of the principle of geographic representation in the Security Council, particularly as concerns Africa and Latin America. At the same time, too great an increase in the number of Security Council members would contradict the idea of maintaining and consolidating the capability of the UN. As regards the right to veto, it should be made clear that, as a multilateral mechanism efficiently acting in the name of peace and security, the United Nations cannot exist without the power of the veto. The history of the League of Nations is quite instructive in this respect. Yet it would be no less destructive for the UN to grant the veto right to many countries. I believe that only five permanent UN Security Council members should enjoy this right.

Opponents to the UN argue that the permanent members of the Security Council are often unable to reach a consensus on questions concerning the use of force in response to the most acute security threats. Such arguments are unfair with regard to situations which undeniably threaten international security. In order to increase the potential for coordinating steps on fundamental security issues within the Security Council, it is expedient to amend its working procedure to a certain extent. The existing procedural innovations should be used on a wider scale, particularly as regards the expansion of cooperation between the UN Security Council members and the leading states providing peacekeeping contingents for UN operations.

The permanent members of the UN Security Council should consider the possible adoption of a joint declaration stating that they will act with maximum responsibility and restraint from invoking their veto right (discussions on this proposal have already taken place and the probability of working out a coordinated document is rather high at the moment). Furthermore, members of the Security Council could forward a politically binding statement that they will spare no effort to reach a consensus in the Security Council on key questions relating to security and stability.

Other, more significant solutions (not involving amendments to the UN Charter) are also possible, but it would make sense to discuss them in detail after determining the format of expanding the UN Security Council.

The Security Council should focus on specific conflict situations as stipulated by the UN Charter. To this end, the Security Council would better free itself of the so-called ‘generic’ debates which deal with questions that fall under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly (problems involving women, children, AIDS, protection of the UN personnel, etc.). It is necessary to direct efforts toward the effective use of other multilateral structures of crisis management, as well as to adapt these structures, if need be, to new threats. This concerns, above all, the Counter-Terrorism Committee and the UN Security Council Committee on sanctions against al Qaeda, the Taliban and their associated individuals and entities (Committee 1267).

The planned reorganization of the Counter-Terrorism Committee and the decision already in effect for strengthening the potential of Committee 1267 (Resolution 1526 of the Security Council) expand the opportunities for cooperation between these two bodies in matters where their terrorism fighting tasks intersect. It is important that the sanction list of Committee 1267 – the only tool of its kind to counteract terrorism – be actively used and constantly revised.

The rich experience which is being gained through the interaction of the CTC and Committee 1267 can also be applied to working out a Counter-Terrorism Charter. This charter should contain a set of specific obligations to liquidate terrorist organizations and their branches, block financial flows, prevent the transit of arms, explosives and terrorists, and extradite those accused of terrorism (as listed by the Anti-Taliban Committee). A refusal to obey the regime to be established by this Charter should be regarded as unacceptable. Such a refusal (and not just opinions of some countries) could provide a basis for condemning a particular country (or countries), thus prompting subsequent sanctions against them.

It makes sense to more actively involve other sanction committees of the UN Security Council, particularly African ones (considering the growing threats from this continent), as well as expert groups established by the Security Council to monitor the observance of the sanctions. Operating under their mandates, these structures could contribute to determining those threats that may be linked to regional conflicts.

A MILITARY DIMENSION

In order to make the UN a working mechanism, that is, an alternative to a unilateral decision on the use of force, it should acquire a military dimension. Thus, it is necessary to continue the practice of conducting operations approved by the Security Council within the format of coalitions of interested states (operations in Albania, East Timor, Afghanistan provide positive examples). It is no less important to work out a system of measures to strengthen the UN’s potential for carrying out multifunctional operations to maintain and, if required, restore peace (using force). In this connection it makes sense to form permanent UN rapid deployment forces stationed with regard to ‘hot spots.’ Moreover, the UN could sign special agreements with certain regional organizations and individual states stipulating that in case the Security Council makes a relevant decision, they will employ their rapid deployment units to conduct operations either under the UN flag or jointly with the UN.
Another promising direction is to form within the UN a sort of expert pool comprising representatives of interested states possessing a solid intelligence potential. Special services of different countries already exchange information so as to uncover potential crises as early as possible and choose optimal ways to neutralize them. However, as was the case with the U.S. prior to the attacks of 9/11, even the availability of certain information failed to help them uncover the terrorists’ plans. The U.S. experience proves the need for joint analysis of information and the constant monitoring of crisis situations.

The UN should establish a structure capable of performing practical management functions in post-conflict conditions, such as the coordination of reconstruction and other UN rehabilitation projects.

The global community was able to overcome the Cold War, which was an extremely dangerous period in its history. There is no doubt that it has enough power to cope with the new challenges, and to find ways to guarantee stability on the planet and the wellbeing of peoples.