|
Law,
Force and Justice
IISS
27 March 2003
Mr President,
Members of the Council,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is an honour for me to be here today to deliver the annual lecture given in memory
of Alastair Buchan, the founder of your institute.
In these moments of crisis, a place of intellect and reflection such as yours shows its
real importance. It is a forum for exchange and debate vital to thought, an essential
laboratory for action.
I am speaking to you at a decisive moment in our history. At a serious moment, when
the United Kingdom is engaged in the military operations in Iraq. I naturally wish that
this conflict finds a swift conclusion with the minimum possible number of casualties.
And in this time of trial, I come to you in a spirit of respect, friendship and dialogue. Icome here to look to the future, beyond the current differences between our two
countries. I believe that we will only overcome the current obstacles if we take a clear
and frank measure of our divisions. I am certain that, in the troubled world in which
we live, we need unity more than ever before. And I hope to show you a French vision
that aims to build and re-establish dialogue.
France and the United Kingdom have particular responsibilities as permanent mem-bers
of the UN Security Council. They should exercise these responsibilities in pursuit
of the same goal: international stability, security and peace. This implies working
together to define the balance required for any international action: law, force and
justice.
***
Where were we ten years ago?
The end of the Cold War changed our world. Law was placed at the centre of interna-tional
concerns. Its relationship with force was profoundly changed.
For nearly fifty years, nuclear deterrence had guaranteed order. Both the West and the
Communist world knew that the use of force would result in untold devastation on
both sides.War would have meant the failure of deterrence and the unthinkable apocalypse.
Yet, with the end of the cold war, force came back as a policy option. It could be envisaged
again, because its cost was no longer disproportionate.
Yet it was rarely used, for two reasons. Because the assertion of Western values met
with little opposition. Because the United States was moderate in its use of force.
Indeed, it has always been true that only moderation makes power acceptable. As
Thucydides remarked in ancient times: “We should be praised for being more just than our available power would normally imply.”
However, no international order can be based solely on the goodwill of the powers.
Collective norms were hence defined to contain the use of force within the bounds of
collective responsibility.
This new order met with considerable success.
It curbed territorial aggression. In 1991, respect for the rule of law and the use of force
drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Any similar invasion would surely be met today
with an immediate and forceful reaction from the international community.
This order also brought assistance to the populations who fell victim to civil war,
authoritarian regimes and natural disasters. Following the Gulf War, operation
Provide Comfort stopped the flow of Kurdish refugees into Turkey and helped them
to return to Northern Iraq. It paved the way for the right of humanitarian intervention
and major UN operations: in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Bosnia, East Timor and Sierra
Leone.
And not least, the new order helped define a set of standards that made force avail-able
to a law based on humanist values. Respect for the individual, the defence of
freedoms, and the fight against poverty and epidemics were all given the force of law.
Yet this balance between law and force did not solve all security problems. Firstly, it
did not solve the question of Iraq’s disarmament, other than with a policy of sanctions
that hit primarily the Iraqi people. Secondly, it did not open up prospects for solving
the regional crises threatening the world’s stability: first and foremost the Middle
East, which remains a prisoner of a spiral of violence and retaliation; but also the disputes
in Cyprus and Western Sahara, and the crisis in Kashmir. In these regions, the
promises of the new world order ran into the complexity of religious and ethnic
rela-tions,the weight of history and geographic constraints.
Moreover, the international community’s support for this order gradually waned. The
results obtained demanded considerable UN resources: in Sierra Leone, a country
with 4 million inhabitants covering 71,000 square kilometres, 16,000 UN troups are
needed to maintain what remains a fragile order.
The limits of the humanitarian intervention concept have gradually started to show.
It makes it possible to take action against a government’s will when an imminent
humanitarian catastrophe demands it. But it has also prompted concern among the
emerging powers and could be criticised for being partial.Why take action here rather
than elsewhere? Who makes the decision to intervene, and based on what legitimate
authority?
The case of Kosovo reflects the complexity of these issues. We were faced with some
disturbing realities in this crisis. The concept of humanitarian intervention was ques-tioned
for the first time. Some powers in the south feared it would allow the Western
democracies to unduly encroach on their sovereignty. And Kosovo prompted many
criticisms, regretting a premature use of force or the interference of political leaders
in the conduct of military operations.
At the end of the day, the operation in Kosovo was a legitimate enterprise and a polit-icalsuccess. But it was also a source of divisions. Some saw it as the first instance of a
customary right to intervene on humanitarian grounds without a UN mandate. We, however, saw it as an exception, justified by a large support and the threat of an imminent
humanitarian disaster.
***
September 11 put an end to the emergence of a new world order.
Firstly, the world entered the age of mass terrorism. We now know that the terrorist
organisations will stop at nothing to spread their message of hate.
Secondly, it changed the meaning of power: in a world where the weak can destabilise
the strong, where ideologies deny the most fundamental rights, the use of force is not
a sufficient answer. When the blade unites with new technologies, it sidesteps the
classic rules of power.
Thirdly, it revealed the vulnerability of the United States, triggered a feeling of anger
and injustice and led this country to change its view of the world. Attacked in the
heart, America refocused its priorities on its own security, its own soil and its own
pop-ulation.
These times of great changes call for a renewed close and trusting relationship with
the United States. France is ready. We understand the immense trauma that this
coun-try has suffered. We showed unwavering solidarity with the Americans after
September 11 and we share their utmost determination to tirelessly fight terrorism
worldwide. Our military commitment in Afghanistan and especially our intelligence
input illustrate this. Lastly, we will continue to work together on the major prolifera-tion
challenges facing us, especially in North Korea.
Because they share common values, the United States and France will re-establish
close co-operation in complete solidarity. We owe it to the friendship between our
peoples, for the international order that we wish to build together.
Over the last few months, some have wondered about France’s reasons for its ways of
going about settling the Iraq crisis. I would like to say loud and clear that our choices
were not made against one country or another, but in the name of a certain idea of
collective responsibility and of a world vision.
We shouldn’t underestimate the stakes here. We need to know by which rules we
would like to live together: only consensus and respect for law can give force the
legit-imacy it needs. If we overstep this mark, could the use of force become a destabilising
element?
We also need to know how to manage the many crises throughout the world. Iraq is
not an isolated case. North Korea and other countries are raising new threats of
pro-liferation.
We must therefore give ourselves the means to deal with them. We had
started defining a disarmament method together and this method was giving results.
Lastly, we have a fundamental concern: how could we neglect the risk of increased
misunderstanding between peoples? A misunderstanding that could lead to a clash
of cultures. Isn’t that the major challenge of the day? Is it unavoidable? We must find the right answers and fuel the spirit of dialogue and respect amongst peoples. In this respect we noted two elements that lie at the heart of resolution 1441: the
international community is most effective when it is united ; the international
community is truly legitimate when it assumes its full responsibility.
Responsibility meant that the Council had to work relentlessly to improve inspections
in order to make the most of resolution 1441. We did so constantly from January
onwards. We proposed reinforcing the inspectors’ resources, adopting a stringent
timetable for inspections, a speedy and focused work programme, and a short dead-line
for the interim report to be presented.
Responsibility also meant that Security Council members should decide together
what must be done. And that they should keep control of the process at every
moment. That is why the Council could not endorse an ultimatum including an
auto-matic use of force. Indeed it would have been outside the framework unanimously
agreed on in resolution 1441. And it would not have been in keeping with the spirit
of our work. Those are the simple reasons for the impasse in the Security Council
during the last round of negotiations. In this context, France was continuously searching
for a compromise. France kept its options open, including the use of force, should
inspections fail.
The situation in the Council did not change even by one vote because most members
felt the peaceful option had not been pursued to the full. Because the military
timetable seemed to overtake the diplomatic agenda from January onwards. Because
the very principle of inspections soon seemed to be called into question. Because the
sense of a gradual shift in objectives from the disarmament of Iraq to regime change,or even the reshaping of the Middle East, no doubt increased the misunderstandings.
***
Through the Iraqi crisis, two different understandings of the world are coming head
to head. They reflect different relationships between law and force, between
international legitimacy and the defence of national security interests.
According to one such understanding - developed in US think-tanks - democracy
can be imposed from the outside. Having faith in the power of the law is therefore
something of a delusion. International legal tools become constraints more than safe-guards
of international security. Some even say that the US would assume its respon-sibilities
alone and show its strength while Europe’s position reflects its weakness. It
also means that some governments might decide of their own accord to strike first
given the scope of the threats. Self-defence then knows no bounds or constraints.
But the limits of the use of force in Iraq and unclear political prospects for the country
fuel many questions on the relevance of such an analysis.
We live in a complex world. It can no longer be explained by series of alliances, as was
the case in the 19th century or the Cold War. Today’s world is about new threats -
terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; about extremely volatile
regional crises; about extremist and fundamentalist ideologies active across the
world; about organised crime becoming a new means of financing and implementing
these threats. Using force in this context will not solve the real issues. It may reveal
new fault lines. We believe in democracy, just as the British and the Americans do. With the Magna
Carta, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the US Constitution, our countries
headed the democratic revolution. We are convinced that democracy needs resolve,conviction and getting used-to.
We do not oppose the use of force. We are only warning against the risks of
pre-emptive strikes as a doctrine. What example are we setting for other countries? How
legitimate would we feel such an action to be? What are our limits to the use of such
might? In endorsing this doctrine, we risk introducing the principle of constant insta-bility
and uncertainty. We risk not controlling situations and rushing into escapism.
Let us not open a Pandora’s box.
How, then, can we act? Our own view is underpinned by a number of requirements.
Unity: It is necessary given the complexity of our world. We can only uproot terrorism
if we increase our police, judicial and intelligence co-operation. We can only respond
to proliferation if we develop together an effective method. We must build on what
we started doing in Iraq. We can only solve regional crises if we start a constructive
dialogue with all parties involved.
Responsibility: All the countries are collectively responsible for increasing the
security and stability of our world. Force is not a privilege some enjoy and law the alibi of
others. We are all bound by the law.
Legitimacy: It is the key to the effectiveness of international action. If we want to
develop the right answers to the challenges of the modern world and to take
appropriate measures - including the use of force - we must do so with the authority of
collective decisions.
***
We must now find once again the path to European unity and reassert transatlantic
solidarity on the basis of those requirements. We must rebuild the world order
shat-tered by the Iraqi crisis.
This is a goal for all Europeans - the fifteen current members of the EU and the soon-to-be members. However, it is a particular challenge for France and the United
Kingdom, which have developed over time a different relationship to the US. Yet we
are both concerned about the quality and strength of the transatlantic relationship,which we acknowledge as a stabilising force in our world.
The alternative is not between force and law. Force must serve the law. Force must be
contained by the law to reverse Pascal’s words:“unable to make what is just strong, we
have made what is strong just.” Asserting the primacy of the law is not an admission
of powerlessness. It is a moral and political obligation, the prerequisite for justice and
effectiveness. Indeed, only justice can guarantee lasting security.
Conversely, if the international system is still seen as unjust, if force always seems to
prevail over the law, if the opinions of the people are disregarded, then destabilising
factors will grow stronger, proliferation programmes will develop, power play will go
on needlessly, and hostility towards western democracies will be increasingly manip-ulated. We must now define our common goals.
Firstly, we must fully disarm Iraq. A unanimous international community rallied
around this goal. It must now be carried through by the inspectors. The UN must steerthe process. More importantly, the UN must be at the heart of the reconstruction andadministration of Iraq. The legitimacy of our action depends on it. We must come
together to build peace together in a region rife with a sense of insecurity and deep
fault lines.
The fight against terrorism must remain our priority. We must pursue our
co-opera-tion,strengthen our exchange of intelligence and develop new tools to fight against
the financing of terrorist networks.
We continue to have a rich and ongoing partnership with the US and the United
Kingdom on proliferation. This partnership must go hand in hand with the work we
will conduct in the UN at the summit proposed by France. We also suggest that
European countries consult closely and develop a common analysis of proliferation
risks so as to assess together the means to respond. We have started developing
dis-armament tools. They are based on a balance between force and law. Establishing a
standing group of UN inspectors would give flesh to our hopes.
All these challenges demand that we work together more than ever before to find a
political settlement to the Middle East crisis. Because this is the mother of all crises,because it is fuelled by a deep sense of injustice, we can only have lasting peace if it is
justice-based. Such justice must meet the expectations of the Palestinian people and
guarantee the security of Israel. Only justice can strengthen peace and law.
All these goals can only be met if the UN gives the impetus. But they can be imple-mented
within major regional poles.
To be truly stable, this new world must be based on a number of regional poles, struc-tured
to face current threats. These poles should not compete against one another,but complete each other. They are the cornerstones of an international community
built on solidarity and unity in the face of new challenges.
The determination of European countries to develop a common foreign and security
policy must reflect that. This determination shows our will to bring about a true
European identity. An identity that all the peoples of our continent are yearning for.
We wish to go resolutely down this path with the support and involvement of the
United Kingdom. We have already covered much ground together in the field of
defence. After the decision in Macedonia, we must pursue our projects such as taking
over from NATO in Bosnia or establishing a European armaments agency. A strongEurope will be in everyone’s interest. It will strengthen the security of our world.
***
France and the United Kingdom must overcome the current difficulties and remain
united.
I am convinced that what brings us together concerns the deepest identity of our
peo-ples.
We have the same sense of independence. We have the same sense of our coun-tries’
global role. I cannot forget that, at the bleakest time in our history, the United
Kingdom welcomed the man who personified the honour and spirit of resistance of
our country. At the same time, Winston Churchill and the British people embodied the
hopes of free peoples.
Strengthened by our mutual respect and friendship, France and the United Kingdom
want to be present and active when Europe comes together to contribute to a world
that fulfils our shared yearning for peace and justice.
|
