POLITICS: Non-Aligned Movement Condemns Humanitarian Intervention

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Apr 6 2000 (IPS) - Amid strong criticism of the unilateral Western military action in Kosovo last year, Third World nations are now reiterating their opposition to a new political concept gaining ground at the UN: “humanitarian intervention”.

At a meeting of foreign ministers in Cartagena, Colombia, scheduled to take place this weekend, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) will reaffirm one of the basic principles of the UN charter, namely non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign nation states.

A proposed NAM declaration, to be adopted at the ministerial meeting, will “condemn all unilateral military actions or threats of military action, including humanitarian intervention, against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of the members of the Movement (NAM).”

Since “humanitarian intervention” could be used as a pretext for armed aggression, some NAM members have proposed that the declaration should be amended to read: “so-called humanitarian intervention.” A final decision on this will be taken in Cartagena.

Currently, NAM is the largest single Third World political body consisting of 114 members, while the Group of 77, which deals with economic issues, comprises 133 developing countries.

Western nations argue that the United Nations has a right to intervene in domestic conflicts purely on humanitarian grounds – with or without the permission of the host country – particularly if there is massive human rights violations as in Kosovo last year or genocide as in Rwanda in 1998.

The North Atlanic Treaty Organisation (NATO), led by the United States, bombed the former Yugoslavia for about 78 days.

In an interview published in a London newspaper Wednesday, former South African President Nelson Mandela criticised the United States and Britain, both veto wielding permanent members of the Security Council, for their unilateral action in Kosovo and also for not seeking “explicit permission” from the Council before the bombings.

“The message they’re sending is that any country which fears a (UN) veto can take unilateral action,” Mandela said. “That means they’re introducing chaos into international affairs: that any country can take a decision which it wants.”

Mandela also criticised the United States and Britain for their continued aerial bombing of Iraq in the “no-fly zone” whose creation was not authorised by the UN Security Council.

Addressing the 188-member General Assembly last year, Secretary General Kofi Annan called on member states to unite in the pursuit of more effective policies to stop organised mass murder and egregious violations of human rights.

“Although I emphasised that intervention embraced a wide continuum of responses, from diplomacy to armed action, it was the latter option that generated the most controversy in the debate that followed,” he said Monday.

In a report spelling out his vision for the 21st century, Annan said that some critics were concerned that the concept of “humanitarian intervention” could become a cover for “gratuitious interference” in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

Others felt that it might encourage secessionist movements deliberately to provoke governments into committing gross violations of human rights in order to trigger external interventions that would aid their cause.

Still others noted that there is little consistency in the practice of intervention, owing to its inherent difficulties and costs, as well as perceived national interests – except that weak states are far more likely to be subjected to it than strong ones.

“I recognise both the force and the importance of these arguments,” Annan said in his report released Monday. “I also accept that the principles of sovereignty and non-interference offer vital protection to small and weak states.”

Humanitarian intervention, he pointed out, is a sensitive issue, fraught with political difficulty, and not susceptible to easy answers.

“But surely, no legal principle – not even sovereignty – can ever shield crimes against humanity,” he said in the report which will go before heads of state at the upcoming Millennium Summit in September.

Where such crimes occur and peaceful attempts to halt them have been exhausted, he argued, the Security Council has a moral duty to act on behalf of the international community.

“The fact that we cannot protect people everywhere is no reason for doing nothing when we can, he asserted. “Armed intervention must always remain the option of last resort, but in the face of mass murder it is an option that cannot be relinquished.”

To critics of human intervention, Annan said he would pose one question: “If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity.?”

Last November the United Nations took much of the blame for the deaths of thousands of Bosnian Muslims when Serb forces overran the town of Srebrenica in July 1995. The fall of Srebrenica took place despite the fact that it was under the protection of 150 Dutch peacekeeping troops and was also declared a “safe area” by the UN.

“The cardinal lesson of Srebrenica is that a deliberate and systematic attempt to terrorise, expel or murder an entire people must be met decisively with all necessary means,” Annan said.