By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 10 2000 (IPS)

The United Nations remains sharply divided over one of the most politically-sensitive issues of the day: UN humanitarian intervention in times of war.

Western nations argue that the United Nations has a right to intervene on humanitarian grounds – with or without the permission of the host country. But the 114 members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) – all developing nations – argue that arbitrary humanitarian intervention is a violation of national sovereignty.

In an opening statement during a one-day debate on the subject, Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the Security Council Thursday that the legal framework for humanitarian action is provided by universal norms embodied in international humanitarian, human rights and refugee laws.

“We must re-dedicate ourselves to ensuring that the legal and principled basis for humanitarian action is maintained, respected, and strengthened,” he added.

But virtually all of the developing nations – including India, Egypt, Tunisia, China and Namibia – whose representatives spoke at the Council meeting, placed a higher priority on sovereignty over humanitarian intervention.

Wang Yingfan of China told the Council that all humanitarian organisations needed to fully heed the view of the country they were in, and adopt an unbiased position towards all recipients and parties.

“The sovereignty of recipient countries should not be threatened,” he said. “No one should interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign state in the name of humanitarian assistance, nor should humanitarian responses be used as a pretext to use force against a state.”

Last year, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), led by the United States, justified the bombing of the former Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds.

The war in the Balkans was also described as the first in defence of human rights – with Serbs accused of genocide against Kosovars and ethnic Albanians.

Ambassador Satyabrata Pal of India argued that because there is no comparable legal framework for humanitarian relief, it might seem to be a greyer area, “but it is the sovereign right of a state to determine whether it needs humanitarian assistance or not.”

“If it chooses not to, it can hardly be forced by the Council, or any other body, to ask for, or to accept, it,” he said.

India, which is wary of UN intervention in its own battle with Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir, has maintained that coercion or the use of force would be wrong in law, violating Article 2.7 of the UN charter.

The Article says that nothing contained in the charter shall authorise the United Nations “to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter.”

Ambassador Robert Fowler of Canada said that where negotiation by humanitarian actors with parties to a conflict failed – and the civilian population continued to be adversely affected – the Security Council must be prepared to take further appropriate action, drawing on the variety of tools at its disposal.

Ambassador Alain Dejammet of France argued that while relieving the suffering of civilians was the task of UN agencies, the Security Council should not be absolved of its responsibilities to deal with humanitarian crises.

Annan pointed out that the experiences of the past decade, from Africa to the Balkans to Asia, “have taught us that our humanitarian mission holds both greater promise and greater peril than almost any other part of the UN’s work.”

“We have seen how humanitarian action can save lives, but we have also seen how it can be exploited and abused by parties unwilling to abide by international humanitarian principles, and only too willing to subvert such actions to further their own inhumane policies,” he added.

Ahmed Aboul Gheit of Egypt said all humanitarian activities should be carried out with full respect for the operational rules of both the relief system and the host country. He reconfirmed NAM’s commitment to the need to differentiate between peacekeeping and humanitarian activities.

But the most forceful arguments came from the Indian delegate who said that the 15-member Security Council, which usually authorises humanitarian action on behalf of the “international community”, does not really represent the wider global community. The Council’s membership is unrepresentative, he said, and in its methods of work it does not welcome or accept the views of the wider membership.

“There would be well-founded fears that the Council would act, not for humanitarian, but for less lofty, reasons,” Pal added.

Since all societies, Pal said, agree that rights and duties go hand in hand, there must be then, a duty to take humanitarian action, and not just in the Security Council.

Pal argued that a state where crops have failed, and is faced with famine, should be able to attack a neighbour and rob its granaries, claiming that it had the duty to take humanitarian action to protect the lives of people.

He also pointed out that at time when thousands are dying of acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome (AIDS), pharmaceutical companies holding the monopoly on the treatment of the disease are keeping the price of drugs unaffordably high.

“Should a state ravaged by AIDS have the right to take these medicines by force, if it can, citing a humanitarian duty to protect its citizens?” he asked.

Excerpt: