The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs
Historic Security Council Standards for Humanitarian Intervention Rutgers Model United Nations 16-19 November 2006
Director: Cheryl Citera
Š 2006 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA) This document is solely for use in preparation for Rutgers Model United Nations 2006. Use for other purposes is not permitted without the express written consent of IDIA. For more information, please write us at idiainfo@idia.net
Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 1 Background _________________________________________________________________ 3 Case Studies _________________________________________________________________ 8 Ethiopia _________________________________________________________________________ 8 Mozambique _____________________________________________________________________ 9 Liberia _________________________________________________________________________ 11
Key Positions _______________________________________________________________ 13 Permanent Members _____________________________________________________________ 13 China _________________________________________________________________________________13 France ________________________________________________________________________________13 Russian Federation ______________________________________________________________________14 United Kingdom ________________________________________________________________________14 United States of America _________________________________________________________________15
Non-Permanent Members _________________________________________________________ 16 Least Developed Countries and Developing Countries___________________________________________16 Developed States________________________________________________________________________16
Summary___________________________________________________________________ 18 Discussion Questions _________________________________________________________ 19 Works Cited ________________________________________________________________ 20
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
1
Introduction The concept of humanitarian involvement can be difficult to define and often provokes strong reactions when such missions are being considered. The idea behind humanitarian efforts, at least in its initial form, is that human life is sacred, and at times when a particular state is unable to protect its citizens, the international community has a moral obligation to act to protect human
Nations would appear to be the ideal body
Sovereignty: Sovereignty refers to the power, and the right to exercise that power of self-government that all independent countries have. They can exercise the power of the state without asking permission from another state.
to
Source: www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm
life.
As perhaps the world’s strongest
advocate for human rights, the United organize
programs.
and
enact
humanitarian
The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR), passed by the UN in 1948 stressed that all the people of the world are entitled to live free from poverty, war, and other suffering. Despite these provisions, the UN was founded based upon the protection national sovereignty, and many UN documents emphasize that individual member states retain authority over their country, and that outside assistance or intervention cannot be forced upon a state. The most effective, legally-sound missions occur when they a country requests help from the UN and the international community at large. Thus, humanitarian intervention, in cases in which a state does not request assistance, brings two of the founding principles of the United Nations into direct conflict. When considering the appropriate application of humanitarian efforts, it is important to consider two categories. ‘Humanitarian assistance’ includes the provision of medical supplies, food, and other necessary life-sustaining resources. ‘Humanitarian intervention’ implies the use of force to establish order and the rule of law. While humanitarian assistance is most often used in times of drought or in response to natural disasters, humanitarian intervention implies the use of military force in the short term, and potentially the use of law enforcement in the longer term, as a means to restore order to a state or region, and to ensure the protection of human rights.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
2
The term ‘humanitarian assistance’ generally refers to “a wide range of activities by governmental and nongovernmental actors that seek to improve the status and wellbeing of individuals.”1 Precisely defining the term is difficult, for there are no exact parameters surrounding what actions are acceptable forms of intervention. While few can object to a state or organization providing food and medical care, the manner in which these supplies are distributed can become an issue. Periods in which humanitarian assistance is used can reinforce traditional social norms, and even cause the further marginalization of minority groups. Assistance, while assumed to be benevolent in nature can also come with unstated motivations from states and groups seeking advantage through their assistance. ‘Humanitarian intervention’ can be defined as “the threat or use of force by a state, group of states, or international organization primarily for the purpose of protecting the nationals of the target state from widespread deprivations of internationally recognized human rights.”2 Debate surrounding humanitarian intervention centers on several issues other than the definition, including how to determine when a situation qualifies as a humanitarian emergency, who should make such determinations, and how the international community should respond. Intervention, perhaps more so than assistance, can be used as a means by outside groups and states to pursue political, social, and even economic motives while working under the guise of a beneficent operation.3 When nonaltruistic motives are involved, it can raise the question of what hidden interests a country might be pursuing and whether its true concern is with protecting human life. History has revealed the atrocities that people can inflict upon each other. The Holocaust and the Second World War were the impetus for the formation of the UN, a body meant to maintain world peace and stability.
The UN’s first foray into
humanitarian assistance, shortly after its inception in 1945 was to provide aid to the 1
Murphy, Sean D. Humanitarian Intervention: The United Nations in an Evolving World Order. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996. 8. 2 Ibid 11-12. 3 Ibid 9.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
3
victims of the Holocaust and other people displaced by the war. Over time, crises which led to significant harm to civilians, such as the famine in Ethiopia in the mid-1980s and civil wars in Mozambique and Liberia in the early 1990s, prompted a variety of responses by the international community.
In some cases, such as the UN Operation in
Mozambique (ONUMOZ), the UN’s intervention efforts were successful, while in other cases, such as the mission in Liberia, the UN failed. The Ethiopian situation marked a time of crisis in which the international community responded with inaction, thereby calling into question its morality and commitment to humanitarian principles. Indeed, some argued that since the famine was causing suffering primarily to Blacks, that there was little support for the development of a humanitarian assistance effort. By 1993, as the world prepared to address an escalating conflict in Rwanda, the UN and the Security Council in particular, were faced with the questions of if and how to intervene on behalf suffering people.
Background Intervention is the intentional interference of a state or body with the purpose of exercising control over policies and practices that are normally within the internal jurisdiction of a state.
Such intervention is conducted for primarily humanitarian
purposes meaning that the interference is intended to protect the local population from harm perpetrated by their own government or by a faction outside the control of the state. Harms for which the government is responsible may include starvation, genocide, or even social disorder.
The theory of
humanitarian intervention suggests that states who interfere do not seek to impede on the territorial integrity of the state nor do they wish to compromise the government of the state.
Biafran War: The Nigerian Civil War, 1967 – 1970, was an ethnic and political conflict caused by the attempted secession of the South-eastern provinces of Nigeria as the self-proclaimed republic of Biafra. The war became notorious for the starvation in some of the besieged war-bound regions, and the consequent claims of genocide made by the largely Igbo people of those regions. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafran_War
Instead, the goal of such efforts is to alleviate suffering among the civilian
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
4
population of a state.4 The idea of humanitarian intervention first developed in the 1970s after the suffering from famine caused by the Biafran War in Nigeria sparked international concern. Although this situation was not addressed by world governments, many non-state actors called for assistance from the international community. The idea of humanitarian intervention addressed a moral imperative that humans Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (also UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/217, December 10 1948), outlining a view on basic human rights. John Peters Humphrey of Canada was its principal drafter, aided by Eleanor Roosevelt of the United States, René Cassin of France, and P. C. Chang of China, among others. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ Declaration_of_Human_Rights
should not stand idly by while innocent civilians die. This notion is grounded in the principles of human rights. In 1948, the United Nations issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, outlining the privileges and liberties to which all people are entitled.
This agreement sets an
international standard that governments are expected to meet.
If there is a significant
violation of human rights, the United Nations Security Council can take action to address the grievances and restore order. In addition to protect human rights, there is also a case for intervention on the grounds of preserving international peace. When a situation arises in which a failed or dangerous state threatens the peace and stability of a region, there is a compelling interest in restoring security through intercession.5 The first United Nations secretary-general to formally propose peacekeeping, peacemaking, and preventive diplomacy initiatives was Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Although Boutros-Ghali’s notable “An Agenda for Peace” was released in 1995, he had long advocated a more proactive United Nations that sought to address issues before they developed into problems, or to use the force necessary to restore international peace and security. Calling upon Chapter VII of
4
Coady, CAJ. “The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention.” Peaceworks No. 45. United States Institute of Peace. July 2002. http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks45.pdf 5 Ibid.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 An Agenda for Peace: Boutros Boutros-Ghali • Preventive diplomacy is action to prevent disputes from arising between parties, to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter when they occur. • Peacemaking is action to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through such peaceful means as those foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations. • Peacekeeping is the deployment of a United Nations presence in the field, hitherto with the consent of all the parties concerned, normally involving United Nations military and/or police personnel and frequently civilians as well. Peace-keeping is a technique that expands the possibilities for both the prevention of conflict and the making of peace. Source: http://www.un.org/docs/SG/agpeace.html
5 the United Nations Charter Boutros-Ghali suggested that humanitarian intervention was an appropriate response to threats against international peace.6 Humanitarian intervention controversial
can because
be it
seemingly undermines the modern idea of sovereignty. States traditionally exercised “absolute sovereignty” which implies a national government that determines the use of force both internally and externally without the consent or consideration of external agents. While some states still agree that national sovereignty is absolute, a more liberal approach has recently developed, viewing globalization and international institutions such as the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as limiting the power of absolute sovereignty. Proponents of this school consider states as having “conditional sovereignty” meaning that the government must perform certain, namely protecting human rights. States are free to act as they see fit, provided they live up to their commitments as detailed by the UDHR, the United Nations Charter, and other important international documents and treaties. Although there are various forms of coercion that can be employed, the most common form of intervention is through military force. The intervening force usually enters the country with the objective of reducing or eliminating suffering within the civilian population; the primary purpose is not to facilitate a regime change or topple the existing government.
The idea of humanitarian war initially seems paradoxical, as
military forces are in effect destabilizing a government and potentially killing people, in 6
Charter of the United Nations. Chapter VII, Article 39. About the United Nations: An Introduction to the Structure and Work of the UN. Accessed: 16 August 2006. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
6
the name of restoring legitimacy to the government, and the safeguarding of human life. Supporters of intervention argue an effectively conducted mission will ultimately benefit a region, despite the potential for human loss. Fundamental to intervention is that response should be proportional and in itself humanitarian. Altruistic military operations must restore and protect human rights and not violate them in the process. The question of what represents a proportional or appropriate response to human rights violations is ambiguous. For instance, the response to genocide cannot in turn be mass killing of the perpetrators; therefore those who intervene must determine the recriminations to be faced by violators of human rights.7 In essence, an intervention force is tasked with not only with restoring order and ensuring the safety of non-combatants, but also to meting out punishment on those found violating the rights of innocent civilians. The nature of the force that intervenes to protect humanitarian interests is also important. There is a strong resistance against unilateral action because this would undermine the purpose of the United Nations.
The international body exists as an
impartial global authority thereby operation through the organization represents a collective decision to take action. By acting through the United Nations, humanitarian intervention is separated from the individual interests of specific states and instead serves the purpose of rendering justice. Unilateral response is undoubtedly more decisive and efficient than a United Nations effort; however, bypassing the international organization can discredit the operation and will likely cast doubt as to its moral legitimacy. Although the Security Council can be slow and political in nature, it is important that any action, either multilateral or unilateral, have some form of approval so as to validate the intervention.8
Whether or not a state chooses to respond or the Security Council
authorizes action depends largely on the political interests involved. States can claim a
7
Lu, Catherine. Just and Unjust Intervention in World Politics: Public and Private. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. 8 O’Keefe, Michael and Tony Coady. Righteous Violence: the Ethics and Politics of Military Intervention. Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 2005.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
7
moral imperative to uphold human rights and intervene on behalf of justice; however, the ultimate decision to interfere entails political motives. Humanitarian intervention is to be used as a last resort, after other methods of preventive diplomacy have been exhausted.
Nonviolent means of pressure such as
economic and political coercion can compel a state to modify its behavior without the use of force. Forms of economic and political pressure can be threats to implement economic sanctions, remove aid, or cut off diplomatic recognition. Similarly, states can offer incentives so that states accused of violating human rights have a compelling reason to adjust their policies to accommodate the wishes of the international community. Nonviolent measures can be used in the early stages of a crisis to ameliorate the problem without the use of force.9 The legality and appropriateness of humanitarian intervention is widely disputed, especially with regard to sovereignty. Article II Section VII of the United Nations Charter states that: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize 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; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.10
This passage is often used to oppose humanitarian intervention on the grounds that the internal proceedings of a state are within domestic jurisdiction and therefore are not subject to international review. Still, it is important to note that the passage mentions that sovereignty does not preclude the implementation of action taken under Chapter VII. Under this chapter of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council is solely charged with determining if a conflict represents a threat to, or breach of the peace, and with determining if pressure or military force is necessary to restore peace.
9
Coady. Charter of the United Nations. Chapter 1, Article II, Section VII. About the United Nations: An Introduction to the Structure and Work of the UN. Accessed: 16 August 2006. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
10
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
8
An additional criticism of humanitarian intervention is that the motives are not truly altruistic and that underlying political or economic impetuses exist to compel states to interfere.
Moreover, the human rights upheld through intervention are generally
Western ideals grounded in Judeo-Christian morality which ignores the divergent systems of values in place throughout the world. Especially within the area of intervention, developing states, often home to unstable governments, fear open-ended intervention by developed states, fearing long term loss of sovereignty and legitimacy.
Case Studies Ethiopia In 1984, the ongoing problems of a severe drought and extensive crop failures in Ethiopia led to a disastrous famine.
Map: Ethiopia and Eritrea
Governmental instability,
coupled with fighting in neighboring Eritrea, hindered relief efforts, for travel was difficult, if not impossible, and the safety of relief workers was continually in jeopardy. Within two years, at least 5.8 million people were dependant on humanitarian aid for food, and the government remained unable or unwilling to deal with the crisis. Government policy dictated that food provided by relief organizations be withheld from rebels within the country.11
The international community recognized that a crisis was occurring in
Ethiopia and that the state’s people were dependant on outside aid for their survival. Despite compelling evidence that a disaster was brewing, the international community was very slow to become involved, fearing getting involved in a regional conflict in the Horn of Africa.
11
While the United Nations ultimately authorized a humanitarian
“Ethiopia in Crisis: Famine and Its Aftermath,1984-88.� Accessed 27 July 2006. http://countrystudies.us/ethiopia/35.htm.1.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
9
assistance mission and the establishment of the Office for Emergency Operations in Ethiopia, it has long been argued that the UN overlooked the situation in Africa for racial and economic regions.
Africa offers little in terms of economic opportunity, and
problems on the continent have often seen slow reactions from the international community, despite compelling evidence that populations were undergoing broad scale suffering. UN intervention in the region came only after images of suffering Ethiopians were broadcast on the news, and people throughout the world demanded action. Had it been left to the United Nations and the Security Council, it is possible that this entire situation may have been overlooked. Map: Mozambique
Mozambique The international community, under the auspices of the UN, became involved in Mozambique following the conclusion of a fourteen year civil war. Security Council Resolution 797 (1992), which was passed on 16 December 1992, authorized the establishment of the United
Nations
Operation
in
Mozambique
(ONUMOZ), and remained in force until December 1994.12
Shortly
after
Mozambique
gained
independence from Portugal in 1975, ongoing tensions between the Government and the Resistencia Nacional Mocambicana (RENAMO), a party with connections to the South African apartheid government, led to the outbreak of violence. In October 1992, Mozambique’s president and the leader of RENAMO signed a peace agreement, bringing the fighting to an end.
12
“Mozambique – ONUMOZ Mandate.” United Nations. Accessed 24 July 2006. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/onumozM.htm. 1.
The
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
10
agreement called upon the UN to help enforce the ceasefire, monitor democratic elections, and oversee humanitarian assistance.13 The humanitarian aspects of the peacekeeping mission were considered essential to the success of the military, political, and electoral goals that were set for Mozambique.14 Based on the peace agreement, ONUMOZ had two primary goals to achieve in the area of humanitarian affairs. It was to assist in reconciling the warring parties and to facilitate refugee return, including both refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). The humanitarian activities undertaken as part of the mission were coordinated by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance (UNOHAC).15 Over the course of two years, this body was expected to reintegrate approximately six million citizens of Mozambique, consisting of 350,000 demobilized soldiers and their dependents, 1.5 million refugees, and some 4.5 million IDPs.16 According to the UN’s timetable, the reintegration of soldiers to civilian life was to take place between October 1993 and April 1994, and refugees and internally displaced persons were also expected to be fully reintegrated by that time. This timetable was meant to ensure that the general population would be prepared to register for democratic elections, the ultimate goal of the peace agreement and the UN mission, by June 1994.17 A central focus of the humanitarian programs was to aid demobilized soldiers in their readjustment to civilian life. To do so, UNOHAC provided food and other supplies, as well as offering career counseling and referrals, job training, and vocational kits.18 UNOHAC worked with the Commission for Reintegration to develop this three-pronged strategy to help former soldiers.19
13
“Mozambique – ONUMOZ Background.” United Nations. Accessed 24 July 2006. http://www.un.org/ Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/onumozFT.htm. 1. 14 Ibid 4. 15 Ibid 6. 16 “United Nations Operation in Mozambique.” Accessed 27 July 2006. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/tpo/resource-bk/mission/onumoz.html. 10. 17 “Mozambique – ONUMOZ Background” 8. 18 Ibid 6. 19 Ibid 13.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
11
Another aspect of the humanitarian program in Mozambique was the establishment of the National Mine Clearance Plan, which included clearing mines from roadways, training Mozambicans to clear mines, and creating mine awareness programs. As of May 1994, UNOHAC was responsible for ensuring that the mine clearance goals as set forth by ONUMOZ were achieved in a timely manner. UNOHAC planned to train 450 Mozambicans in demining by the end of 1994.20 Although ONUMOZ’s goals were not all reached according to its initial timeline, it ultimately was successful in handling the humanitarian aspects of the mission. By December 1994, the mission was terminated, leaving Mozambique with long term prospects of peace and stability.21
Liberia The UN became involved in Liberia because of a deadly civil war that began in 1989. Initially, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a regional organization, sought to broker peace talks and re-establish stability. Despite their efforts, the war persisted, resulting in the deaths of 150,000 civilians and the displacement of 850,000
Map: Liberia
Liberians.22 By 1991, the Security Council began to address the issue, including implementation of a peace agreement, support for elections, and provision of humanitarian aid. The massacre of 600 civilians in 1993 highlighted the need for outside intervention in Liberia.23 The summer of 1993 brought about the signing of the Cotonou Peace Agreement, which called for UN assistance in reintegrating refugees and rapidly transporting
20
Ibid 13. Ibid 20. 22 “Liberia – UNOMIL Background.” United Nations. Accessed 27 July 2006. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/ dpko/co_mission/unomilFT.htm. 2. 23 Ibid 3. 21
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
12
humanitarian aid in compliance with the UN’s earlier embargo on Liberia.24 Despite the efforts of ECOWAS and the UN, fighting continued throughout the next few years, with occasional attacks against civilians by soldiers. Plans to assist and reintegrate refugees and displaced persons were also unsuccessful, and at the end of 1994, approximately 1.1 million Liberians were considered internally displaced, and another 785,000 were refugees in other countries.25 UN peacekeepers and relief workers deployed to Liberia were severely hindered by the failure to establish a lasting ceasefire. At times, the UN workers themselves became the victims of attacks, which prevented them from fulfilling their security and humanitarian roles.26 As the conflict continued to escalate, humanitarian relief work came to a halt, for the risks to relief workers were too great and it was impossible to reach people in need of assistance. By September 1994, only ninety of UNOMIL’s authorized 368 observers remained in Liberia. The UN was forced to remove the majority of its military personnel because it was unable to effectively provide for their security.27 Although the humanitarian assistance behind the initial efforts of ECOWAS took priority over military and political concerns, the intervention was ultimately a failure. The plan was to secure an area around the capital of Monrovia that would enable relief workers to quickly and safely provide aid to the civilian victims of the fighting, and once relief work was under way, intervention plans were to establish a ceasefire and work towards elections.28 However, ECOWAS and the UN were unable to create the stability and security that were essential to a comprehensive humanitarian effort. They faced opposition from the various warring Liberian factions, none of which had requested outside involvement in their country. The conflict lasted for years, and the initial efforts to provide humanitarian relief were a resounding failure.
24
Ibid 4. Murphy 158. 26 “Liberia – UNOMIL Background” 11. 27 Ibid 11. 28 Murphy 160. 25
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
13
Key Positions Permanent Members China In the past, China tended to oppose humanitarian efforts on the grounds of respecting sovereignty. It is unwilling to interfere in a country’s internal affairs unless that country has specifically
expressed
a
need for assistance from other countries.
China’s
Good Offices: The UN Secretary General uses what is termed his "good offices" (generally meaning his prestige and the weight of the world community he represents) when he meets with world leaders, either publicly or privately, in an effort to prevent international disputes from developing, escalating, or spreading. For example, in 1998 Kofi Annan negotiated a settlement of the dispute between Iraq and the U.S. over arms inspections in Iraq. He used the prestige of his office and the threat of UN Security Council action if no agreement was reached to force Saddam Hussein to allow continuation of UN inspections. Source: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/ungoodof.htm
resistance to humanitarian intervention stems from the fact that China is known for its history of human rights abuses, and in order to protect itself from international scrutiny, China often avoids involvement with human rights issues in other countries. China advocates strongly that peacekeeping operations should be neutral in nature, and avoid the use of force at all costs. Rather, the state advocates the use of the Good Offices of the United Nations to achieve peaceful settlement to disputes. China has recently been willing to be involved in peacekeeping missions that limit the use of force to self-defense purposes, respect sovereignty, and have the consent of the target country.
It has been involved in intervention in countries including Liberia,
Mozambique, and Sierra Leone, and participated in regional missions such as the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) and the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM).29
France France, as a prosperous Western nation, has the resources to resolve any internal humanitarian issues without outside intervention. Like the other permanent members of 29
“Peacekeeping Operations of the UN.” Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations. Accessed 10 August 2006. http://www.china-un.org/eng/zghlhg/hphaq/whxd/t29393.htm. 2.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
14
the Security Council, France balances the value of national sovereignty against humanitarian concerns when determining if intervention is warranted. It is not an active proponent of humanitarian intervention, but has contributed to peacekeeping missions, including the operation to ensure the safety of humanitarian aid workers in Somalia. However, following the killing of Pakistani and U.S. soldiers in several attacks in wartorn Somalia, France decided to withdraw its troops.30 Attacks on military personnel involved in humanitarian operations made France wary of future intervention.
Russian Federation The Russian Federation strongly supports national sovereignty and thus is resistant to forcible humanitarian intervention. Unless a country requests outside assistance, the Russian Federation is unlikely to support measures that it deems an infringement on sovereignty. It expects countries to manage their own affairs and provide for their own people in the face of humanitarian crises. The Russian Federation’s relationship with Chechnya contributes to this position, for should the Russian government begin to intervene in other countries in response to human rights concerns, it would open itself up to criticism and potential outside intervention based on allegations of Russian human rights abuses against the Chechens.31
United Kingdom The United Kingdom’s approach to humanitarian intervention is similar to the American position. The UK’s status as a most-developed country, as well as its location, tends to make it favor isolationist policies. Like the U.S., the UK is capable of resolving internal humanitarian issues without intervention from outside powers, and it would resist any outside attempts to override British sovereignty.
Although the UK is not
immediately willing to put its military at risk to intervene in other countries, in the cases
30
“Summary.” Somalia – UNOSOM II Background. Accessed 9 August 2006. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unosom2backgr1.html. 1. 31 “Human Rights Overview – Russia.” Human Rights Watch. Accessed 10 August 2006. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/russia12218.htm. 2.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
15
of blatant human rights violations or humanitarian crises, the UK has occasionally provided personnel, funding, and other resources to humanitarian operations.32
United States of America The United States, as one of the most powerful members of the international community, has a dual position on humanitarian intervention. Because of its political and military strength, the U.S. highly values its sovereignty and would be adamantly opposed to any attempt by a foreign power to forcibly intervene in American affairs. The U.S. furthermore has the necessary resources to handle internal humanitarian crises when they arise. Although the U.S. would resist foreign intervention in its own matters, it does not believe that the issue of national sovereignty automatically precludes intervention by the U.S. or other powers into another country that is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis. It has therefore been willing to become involved in foreign countries whose governments are unable to protect and provide for their citizens during emergencies. For example, in November 1992, the U.S. volunteered to lead a mission into Somalia, where a civil war had been raging and a famine was likely to break out. The operation’s purpose was to protect humanitarian aid and to ensure that aid safely reached the Somali people.33 However, by 1993, the warring factions in Somalia were not honoring the ceasefire agreement, which heightened the threat to peacekeepers and aid workers. In October 1993, eighteen U.S. soldiers were killed in Mogadishu, which prompted the U.S., Belgium, France, and Sweden to decide to remove their troops from Somalia. Public outcry among American citizens led the U.S. government to look unfavorably upon future humanitarian intervention missions.34
32
“Facts and Figures.” UNAMIR – Background. Accessed 10 August 2006. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unamirF.htm. 1. 33 “Summary.” Somalia – UNOSOM I Background. Accessed 9 August 2006. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unsom1backgr1.html. 1. 34 “Summary.” Somalia – UNOSOM II Background. Accessed 9 August 2006. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unosom2backgr1.html. 1.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
16
Non-Permanent Members Least Developed Countries and Developing Countries Populations within least developed and developing countries are supporters of humanitarian intervention, as they often lack the resources to deal with humanitarian crises. Least developed and developing states are thus the most likely to be in need of outside assistance in providing for their citizens, whether it be from individual countries, the UN, regional bodies, or NGOs. While civilians within these states recognize the value of sovereignty, they also are aware that in crisis situations, other countries or organizations are essential in providing basic resources. For instance, Haiti and Somalia required prolonged humanitarian assistance and intervention during their civil wars. Developing countries that have overcome humanitarian obstacles understand the need for intervention and are likely to provide troops to staff humanitarian operations. These states also recognize the potential for economic gain in providing troops to peacekeeping missions. Countries near the site of an emergency tend to be willing to intervene to prevent the problems from escalating and spreading into their lands, but this could affirm the fear that some states are open to humanitarian assistance and intervention missions based upon ulterior motives.
Developing and underdeveloped populations often welcome
external aid and assistance while the governments of these states responsible for the humanitarian crisis reject foreign involvement, seeing it as a threat to their legitimacy. These governments view intervention, even to ease the suffering of the domestic population, as a violation of national sovereignty.
Largely, the response of
underdeveloped and developed states is specific to the instance.
Developed States Developed countries are unlikely to need humanitarian assistance, but are instead those who are likely to lead the movement toward intervention.
The notion that
developed states have an interest in maintaining international peace and security as part of their own national interest makes some developed states look upon intervention
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
17
favorably. Still, there often must be incentive for a state to intervene beyond mere altruism, meaning that the developed state has an active interest in seeing stability restored within the volatile region. This motive may not relate directly to the national security of a state but can be as tangential as appealing to constituency requests for action if the media created public outrage over the crisis. Developed states have to carefully weigh the benefits and dangers of intervening which include infringement upon national sovereignty, the outlook for success, and risk to personnel and resources among other factors. Developed countries often need to feel that their interests are directly affected before committing to a humanitarian operation.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
18
Summary Humanitarian intervention is a relatively new idea within the realm of international politics, having only been developed in the late 20th Century. The doctrine of intervention maintains that states and international institutions can interfere in the internal matters of a country to ensure that human rights are being upheld and that innocent populations are protected from conflict. The offenses do not necessarily have to be perpetrated by the government of that state but instead may be caused by splinter groups, or even an external actor. The international community can impede on national sovereignty to protect a civilian population, through armed intervention if such force be deemed necessary, but only with the consent of all involved parties. It is generally recommended that other diplomatic channels first be exhausted before an operation commences. Further beneficial to the prospects of success for the operation is that the intervention be sanctioned by the United Nations as this provides legitimacy and demonstrates impartiality. Still, there are many detractors with regard to humanitarian intervention. The infringement upon national sovereignty is problematic in many instances. Similarly, the arbitrary nature of where, when, and why a force becomes involved challenges the motives of those states who seek to interfere. Also, there are risks to the states that comprise the intervention force. Success is not assured and operations are a drain on resources and personnel alike. While the international community seeks to promote peace and security globally, they must balance this with guarding their own interests and respecting the sovereignty of other states.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
19
Discussion Questions • How does your country define humanitarian intervention? assistance?
Humanitarian
• Are there any other humanitarian missions in which your state has recently participated? What caused your state to get involved? What role did public opinion play in this decision? • Has your country ever received humanitarian assistance from the international community or been the subject of humanitarian intervention? How have these experiences shaped your country’s approach to these efforts? • How should the international community reconcile the conflicting principles of protection human life and respecting national sovereignty? • Is national sovereignty absolute? Is there a point at which the international community can no longer disregard human rights violations and must take action to stop abuses, regardless of whether or not a state has requested outside intervention? If there is such a point, what standards should be set to facilitate making a decision to intervene? • What international bodies are in the best position to organize and lead interventions? Should the UN take the primary role, or are regional organizations, NGOs, or other bodies more suited to this role? Should unilateral action be allowed? • Does a widespread consensus need to exist before humanitarian intervention can be undertaken? Do the same rules apply for humanitarian assistance missions?
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
20
Works Cited Charter of the United Nations. Chapter 1, Article II, Section VII. About the United Nations: An Introduction to the Structure and Work of the UN. Accessed: 16 August 2006. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html Charter of the United Nations. Chapter VII, Article 39. About the United Nations: An Introduction to the Structure and Work of the UN. Accessed: 16 August 2006. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html Coady, CAJ. “The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention.” Peaceworks No. 45. United States Institute of Peace. July 2002. http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks45.pdf “Ethiopia in Crisis: Famine and Its Aftermath,1984-88.” Accessed 27 July 2006. http://countrystudies.us/ethiopia/35.htm.1. “Facts and Figures.” UNAMIR – Background. Accessed 10 August 2006. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unamirF.htm. “Human Rights Overview – Russia.” Human Rights Watch. Accessed 10 August 2006. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/russia12218.htm. “Liberia – UNOMIL Background.” United Nations. Accessed 27 July 2006. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unomilFT.htm. 2. Lu, Catherine. Just and Unjust Intervention in World Politics: Public and Private. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. “Mozambique – ONUMOZ Background.” United Nations. Accessed 24 July 2006. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/onumozFT.htm. 1. “Mozambique – ONUMOZ Mandate.” United Nations. Accessed 24 July 2006. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/onumozM.htm. 1. Murphy, Sean D. Humanitarian Intervention: The United Nations in an Evolving World Order. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996. O’Keefe, Michael and Tony Coady. Righteous Violence: the Ethics and Politics of Military Intervention. Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 2005.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 “Peacekeeping Operations of the UN.” Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations. Accessed 10 August 2006. http://www.chinaun.org/eng/zghlhg/hphaq/whxd/t29393.htm. 2. “Summary.” Somalia – UNOSOM II Background. Accessed 9 August 2006. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unosom2backgr1.html. “United Nations Operation in Mozambique.” Accessed 27 July 2006. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/t-po/resource-bk/mission/onumoz.html.
21