A mischievous move

In the works at the UN is a mischievous resolution, drafted by the US and supported by four other permanent UNSC members and nuclear powers - Britain, France, Russia and China - and opposed by a number of non-aligned nations, including Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia.
It purports to compel member countries to adopt and enforce laws that prohibit terrorists or a "non-state actor" from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. On the face of it, that looks like a much desirable objective, but the mischief is in the detail.
While calling on all member states to penalise those helping terrorists obtain weapons, the draft invokes Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which allows for the use of military force and sanctions.
As pointed out by Pakistan's UN Ambassador, Munir Akram, "a legitimate fear arises that the use of Chapter 7...would imply the pre-authorisation of the coercive action."
The British envoy, Adam Thomson, tried to play down this dangerous aspect of the resolution saying, "any enforcement action would require a new Council decision."
That condition though does nothing to allay the fears of potential targets of the resolution, given what happened in the run-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq on the false pretext that it possessed weapons of mass destruction.
True, the opponents of the invasion - France, Germany and Russia - did not allow for the passage of a second resolution that Britain and the US had wanted to acquire international legitimacy for their war plans.
It is also true that the US and Britain went ahead irrespective of a new resolution, giving their own convoluted interpretation to the earlier passed Resolution 1441 that, the war's opponents said, did not authorises the use of military force against Iraq.
So, as long as the present resolution has the cover of Chapter 7, there will always remain a possibility that the sole superpower may invoke it, reinterpreting it to suit its purposes, in order to attack an alleged violator.
It is also possible that the permanent members of the UNSC, all of whom are members of an exclusive nuclear club and hence regard themselves as above reproach, may join hands to have the UN pass a new resolution to punish one or the other small but independent-minded nation.
That justice and fairness is the least consideration in the plans and policies of the big powers, is obvious from the way the US as well as the Europeans have maintained complete silence over Israel's acquisition of nearly 200 nuclear warheads in sharp contrast to their stance against Israel's neighbours.
They have all been moving heaven and earth to prevent countries like Iraq, Iran, and Libya from building nuclear deterrents to the Zionist state's expansionist drive.
Presently, the US needs Pakistan to fight its war against terrorism, and hence has preferred not to punish it for the proliferationist activities of its scientist, Dr A.Q. Khan. But nothing stays the same forever in international relations. If the situation changes so can the US decision to let Pakistan deal with the issue on its own.
The argument, of course, is not to justify proliferationist activities by individuals or states, but only that any preventive regulations regime should be such that it does not allow the big powers to arrogate to themselves the right to punish one or the other state through the use of coercive power. It would be useful to make the existing non-proliferation treaties more effective than they are. That would require the established nuclear powers too to fulfil their obligations on the issue, which they have continued to ignore.
(The US, for example, has persistently refused to ratify the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)).
Still better, they must work towards a just resolution of the issues of conflict, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict that is at the heart of proliferation activities in the Middle East as well as the cause of so-called Islamic terrorism against the West.