|
Authorizing Pre-emptive Strikes Illegal: Experts
 |
|
Al-Ashaal said the recommendation marks a deviation from international law and a complimentary to the US
|
By
Alaa Abul-Enein, IOL Correspondent
CAIRO,
December 2 (IslamOnline.net) - The UN’s endorsement of a
controversial recommendation authorizing pre-emptive strikes would be
a violation of international law, two Egyptian international law
experts said.
A
16-member blue-ribbon committee formed by UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan a year ago is expected to recommend Thursday, November 2, the
preventive use of force even before a threat becomes imminent.
“Such
a recommendation is a breach of the international law and deprives
countries of their legitimate right to defend themselves against
occupation,” Dr. Ali Al-Ghatit, an Egyptian international law
expert, told IslamOnline.net.
“This
pre-emptive logic might be exploited by countries such as the US and
used against countries only building their armies for self-defense
purposes, like Egypt, Syria or Iran” he warned.
The
committee concluded that the world community should be concerned about
the “nightmare scenarios combining terrorists, weapons of mass
destruction and irresponsible states and much more besides, which may
conceivably justify the use of force, not
just reactively, but preventively and before a latent
threat becomes imminent.”
American
Doctrine
Dr.
Abdullah Al-Ashaal, a former Egyptian assistant foreign minister and
an international law expert, agreed.
“The
recommendation authorizing pre-emptive strikes marks a deviation from
international law principles and a complimentary to the United
States.”
Al-Ashaal
stressed that the ratification of such a proposal will trigger chaos
in international relationships and undermine the well-established
principle on the use of force.
The
law expert spoke of several theories regarding the use of military
force, some are approved by the international community and others are
not.
He
said the UN Charters allows a country to counter any aggression on its
soil, provided that the reprisal be halted once the UN interferes.
A
second theory, added Al-Ashaal, allows a country to attack another in
case of having solid and undisputable evidence of a attack being
plotted against its territories.
The
international law expert said the Unites States has hatched its own
version of the use of force.
Washington’s
pre-emptive doctrine allows it to launch so-called preventive strikes
against other countries over fears that this country might pose a
threat to its security sometime in the future.
“The
United Nations has opposed this theory because it is based on
assumptions and not solid evidences,” Al-Ashaal said.
He
cited the US-le3d invasion of Iraq as a case in point.
Washington
invaded UN member Iraq last year without a mandate from the UN
Security Council and amid fierce opposition from most of its members,
including veto-wielding Russia, France and China.
The
US claimed, at the time, the main rational for the war was ridding
Iraq of its weapons of mass destructions which could pose a threat to
the American national security sometime in the future.
After
months of scrutiny, top US weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer,
concluded the oil-rich Arab country has
no weapons of mass destruction .
Eighteen
months into the occupation, Annan called the US-led war “illegal”
as it contravened the UN charter.
Following
the American example, Russia had threatened to to
launch pre-emptive strikes on “terrorist
bases” worldwide.
|
