What are the implications of state sovereignty for humanitarian intervention? (Part One)
In recent weeks, Oxfam-an international famine relief organization based in Oxford, UK-has called upon major powers such as the United States and Russia to support the implementation of sweeping reforms within the United Nations in the area of peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. This strongly-worded proposal will make the international community responsible for taking swift and decisive action to protect populations from genocide and crimes against humanity. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will spearhead these discussions at the UN summit taking place this September. He calls them the "the most far-reaching reforms in the history of the United Nations", aimed at bringing conflict resolution and peacekeeping in line with "today's realities." Past and recent failures such as Rwanda and Sudan will no doubt cast a long shadow over the summit's proceedings.
While countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Japan and Canada have voiced their support for these reforms, others have objected heatedly, citing that the UN must not become overly interventionist and undermine state sovereignty. Those who support these reforms have stood firm with claims that intervention for the sake of human life should take precedence over state sovereignty.
But what is state sovereignty? Why is it so important in relation to humanitarian intervention? Let us explore the obvious and not-so-obvious answers to these questions.
State sovereignty is defined as the exclusive right to practice supreme authority over a certain region or a group of people. It also means total control over the affairs that happen within a territorial and geographical area. This concept is so significant that since its founding, the United Nations has pledged to respect and uphold the sovereignty of member states. This has had great consequence for humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping.
The United Nations promotes peace through a doctrine known as collective security. Member states agree in principle that any breach of peace involving one is of concern to all. Such breaches ought to be remedied through collective action. This, in theory, discourages any member state from acting in a manner that will provoke conflict.
To its credit, collective security has been successful in averting the kind of total war that devastated the first half of the 20th century. One of the ways in which collective security is maintained is through multinational peacekeeping operations that are performed under the auspices of the UN.
Traditional peacekeeping is divided into three phases. The first phase involves getting the warring factions to agree to a ceasefire and consent to the entry of peacekeepers. In the second phase, the ceasefire is now in place, allowing for the deployment of lightly armed troops who wear blue helmets and use vehicles that are painted white. They will function as a buffer between the warring factions and act as impartial observers, ensuring that the terms of the ceasefire are being followed. This allows tensions to be steadily defused and nonviolent relations to be encouraged. In phase three, a window opens for relief work to be performed to ease the sufferings. Institutions and infrastructure that have been damaged or destroyed in the conflict are rebuilt. Diplomatic efforts to cement peace are facilitated.
However, collective security through peacekeeping has been unsuccessful in deterring wars of lower intensity, such as the 1982 Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands and the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq. Most embarrassingly, the UN has been ineffective in curtailing violent civil conflict and delivering humanitarian intervention at critical junctures throughout the 1990s.
In 1993, the UN failed to deliver food and medicine to the famished citizens of Somalia. These supplies were seized by ruthless warlords such as Mohammed Farrah Aidid. US Special Forces resorted to launching a raid in the capital city of Mogadishu to apprehend allies of Aidid. The mission triggered a humiliating 15-hour bloody battle that led to the end of American participation in Somalia.
In 1994, the UN failed to take decisive action to prevent Hutu extremists from murdering almost one million Tutsis and Hutu moderates over the course of three months. Reliable intelligence had been gathered beforehand on the preparations for ethnic cleansing, but UN did not authorize actions that would have stopped the extremists.
In 1995, the UN failed to prevent one of the largest European massacres since the Second World War. Dutch peacekeepers stationed in Srebrenica, Eastern Bosnia—which had been declared a safe area—were unable to do anything as over 8,000 Bosniaks were murdered by Serbian forces.
These catastrophes have highlighted the manner in which UN protocols related to humanitarian intervention have been limited and hampered by state sovereignty. There are circumstances in which seeking the consent of local authorities before taking action is clearly not workable.
Some experts believe that the number of people killed by their own governments goes beyond those killed in both World Wars. It is therefore not unknown for governments to perpetrate aggression against their own citizens with alarming regularity.
This can be readily observed during acts of ultra-violent genocide. Aggressors will often behave in a manipulative fashion, denying that such acts are taking place. They may take elaborate steps to obstruct or blindside the UN. They may even insist that the situation is strictly an internal matter, and forbid journalists and independent observers from entering the area. This makes it difficult for the UN to ascertain the depth and scale of the violence.
The ongoing Darfur Crisis in Western Sudan is an example. Since 2003, government-backed Arab militants known as the Janjaweed have singled out black African villages for attack. Hundreds of thousands have died, while two million more have lost their homes to massive land seizures. The remoteness of Darfur has made it easy for the Sudanese regime to institute cover-ups and issue blatant denials.
Comments
You can't have the cake and eat it.
Sovereignty means that others can't tell you what to do with your own country. It also means that a government has the right to kill it's own people.
Putting humanitarian intervention over state soverignity means that other countries (as a group, presumably) can stop a genocide or whatever, in some other country. But it also means that those who are powerful can dictate terms to those who are less powerful.
Which is worse (or better)? For a country to have the right to kill your own people, or to give other countries the right to tell you how to run your country?
I keep thinking about a good example of this and I have not arrived at any answer yet. Was Iraq better off with Saddam as the sovereign ruler and supposedly killing his own people, or is Iraq better off now with some do-gooder cowboy kicking his (Saddam's) butt and "saving" the country from this evil tyrant?
From the viewpoint of the rest of the world, it seems that things were much more peaceful with Saddam in power. And looking at the way things are going on now in Iraq, it seems that nobody is any happier now that Saddam is gone.
It has been said that the road to destruction is paved with good intentions.
Perhaps it is better to let a "lesser" evil transpire under bounded conditions, than to unwittingly unleash a subtle and potentially much greater evil unknowingly manifested in the guise of humanitarian intervention.
Posted by: Freddie Chong | August 29, 2005 09:44 PM
Nothing changes for the better without a price and some sacrifice.
Posted by: Yvonne Foong | August 30, 2005 08:58 AM
What I am saying is, when we try to change things and make things better for others, we can end up making things a lot worse.
What gives any country (or countries) the right to decide that another country is in bad shape and that things should be made better? Whose standards should such assessments be based on? Why those standards? Why should anyone have any right to intefere with the affairs of another country?
Humanitarian intervention has often resulted in some form of inteference in the affairs of another country, often in areas of govenrment, internal security, religion, social and cultural practices.
Darfur is a good example. The govenrment is purportedly murdering its own citizens. Who or what gives anyone outside Sudan, the right to make this judgement?
If the UN or US or whoever can arbitrarily judge the Sudanese government as being murderous, then the Sudanese government can also arbitrarily judge the UN, US, etc., as being imperialistic aggressors bent on intefering with the affairs of Sudan. Ie., "if you can say I am bad, then I can say you are worse"
Posted by: Freddie Chong | August 30, 2005 09:39 AM
There are measures in which people use to tell if a country is in bad shape. Mainly economic measures but there are also humanitarian measures such as the Human Development Index (HDI) which includes Living Standards, Population Health, Income per Capita, ife Expectancy, Literacy Rate, Doctors per Capita, Availability of Fresh Water and many others. The HDI does not base itself according to any world standards but in accordance to the amount needed for a person to survive in that country. For example, an income of say RM 3000 may be sufficient for a Malaysian to survive in Malaysia for 1 month, but that amount would be impossible to live with in America. With the HDI, the amount of income per capita needed to give a good standard would be less for Malaysia as we need less money to survive whereas for America might be more as their cost of living is higher.
These method is what are used and published yearly by economists and is used by many organizations and countries to determine their development standards. As shown, the HDI takes no economic factors into account, just humanitarian factors and thus I would say that the standards used to judge other countries if they are in a bad shape is actually a fair one as it is not based on economic standards but humanitarian standards and it is not based on other country's standard of living.
Given that, if you were suppressed like in Darfur, wouldn't you want some kind of help from the outside world, wouldn't you want something to stop the killing before you or your family is affected? Maybe you are right, another bigger evil will settle in, but then again, most countries that do help are not as bad as those who was there in the first place. It is the circumstances after that which causes more problems.
Again, it might be right to say that let the "lesser" evil reign, but how can you judge which is lesser or greater as you have not experience it yourself, all you see is what is portrayed on the TV screen, which might not be what is really happening but as you said in the "face of war" post, it is just "hypocrisy taken to the limit".
To take action is better than to leave unnoticed, as to remove the problem first, will definitely be better than to letting it take root and continue growing such as a tumour or growth. If taken out at an eary stage, it is easier and better for the patient compared to letting it continue growing and finally reaching a more dangerous stage. Human beings naturally fight for survival by taking on one issue at a time and since we cannot see the future, we can only do what needs to be done and hope for the best. If in the short term, interfering might be the answer to the problem, why not?
Posted by: Sh@dow | August 30, 2005 10:27 AM
Would someone help re-structure Malaysia?
Freddie, what makes you think that people in Iraq are happier under Saddam Hussein's rule?
Posted by: Yvonne Foong | August 30, 2005 10:30 AM
Sh@dow, You said that most countries that do help, are not as bad as those who were there in the first place. What gives anyone the right to decide that?
Let's take a very obvious example. Many people will think that the US is better off the Sudan. But the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed will think otherwise (for obvious reasons). So who is right?
The issue really is, what gives anyone the right to make judgement on another?
Yvonne, Iraq is another classic example, and it is not just about the Iraqi people. Outwardly, Iraq and the rest of the world should be better off without Saddam. After all, he did murder hundreds of thousands of his own kind, and started a war with Iran and tried to annex Kuwait. So, one would think that the world would thank the US for getting rid of Saddam, right? Especially so, the Iraqis.
But look at the net result. The Americans come in on the pretext of bringing democracy, etc and what has happened?
1. The US is now considered a bully (classic case of road to destruction being paved with good intentions)
2. The Iraqis are complaining that life is getting worse, ie. no facilities, supplies, etc.
3. The nation is in danger of breaking up into Kurd, Shia, and Sunni components
4. ALL THE MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD hate the western world for interfering into the affairs of another Muslims country.
The last point is a very very very important one. When we say "things being better or worse", it is not just about the circumstances of Iraqis that we have to think about. We also have to consider the impact on the world community.
In this case (Iraq), the situation is very glaring. Thousands of Iraqis have probably been saved from Saddam, but millions of Muslims now think that there is a western conspiracy against Muslims worldwide. This is the road to destruction that is being paved when Iraq was so-called "liberated" by the "good intentions" of the US. Apparently, most of the world's 1 billion Muslims feel very angry about American inteference in the affairs of Iraq.
We have just swapped the torture of Iraqis by Saddam, for a potentially much larger conflict of Muslims against non-Muslims.
Which is better?
Posted by: Freddie Chong | August 30, 2005 11:18 AM
Sh@dow, Let's put it very very crudely and bluntly.
A hell of lot of people think that there is just plain simple bloody murder going on in Darfur.
The Sudanese government and the Janjaweed think it is perfectly ok to suppress rebel forces by killing off all the villagers who support and give them refuge.
The Arab community, of which Sudan is a member of, totally rejects any form of interference into the affairs of another Arab country by any other country, Arab or non-Arab.
So, who is "right" and who is "wrong"? Whose judgement should hold sway in this matter?
It is not as obvious and simple as it looks.
Posted by: Freddie Chong | August 30, 2005 11:38 AM
non-interference is good. what is happening in sudan is an internal matter. unless the government asks for the world to help, the world should just mind it's own business.
Posted by: basin | August 30, 2005 05:23 PM
So much of the turmoil in the world can be ultimately traced back to some country interfering with the affairs of another. This is either in the form of "saving them from themselves", acquiring favorable trade concessions, proxy wars, or downright direct aggression.
I think Basin is damn right about people minding their own business.
The downside to it is that, thousands may be brutalized or victimized in some far-out dictatorial hellhole. But localized conflicts with constrained casualties are better than having global tension that threatens to tear the world apart.
Posted by: Freddie Chong | August 30, 2005 05:40 PM
that's right. the people who die in these faraway places are on their own. who cares. doesn't affect me or my livelihood. die, die lor.
Posted by: basin | August 30, 2005 05:47 PM
Somebody WILL die. Somebody MUST die. The less the interference, the fewer the number who die. And if somebody has to die, who do you prefer? You or somebody else?
Posted by: Freddie Chong | August 30, 2005 05:59 PM
you are right. it's just a couple of black people. too bad for them. i say, just let africa die off. it doesn't affect malaysia anyway.
Posted by: basin | August 30, 2005 06:50 PM
Effectively.... that is already happening. That is, until somebody finds oil in Africa.
Posted by: Freddie Chong | August 30, 2005 08:45 PM
well, dun think so much about all this complicated issues. let africa sort it out for themselves. so what if a million people get wipe out in some country i never heard about? i prefer to go watch my astro.
Posted by: basin | August 31, 2005 05:07 AM
Millions of people dying, getting wiped out, exterminated, genocide, ethnic cleansing, war, etc., in Africa and all those other far our places...Hmmmm.....
Then why is it that the population in such places keeps booming if so many people are dying?
Time to turn the argument around and think again. Exactly what are the humanitarian disasters that requires external intervention? How can there be said to be humanitarian disasters if there is such prolific population growth?
Now perhaps, the real humanitarian disaster (yet to come), is what happens when there is "no more room on this small island to accommodate a population that keeps growing and growing and growing". (To quote an ad in National Geographic).
Sending in tons and tons of aid to places like Ethiopia on a bespoke basis has only resulted in a doubling of the population with no change in quality of life. It has not done Ethiopia any good whatsoever. But it has given bragging rights to Bob Geldof and a lot of other do-gooders.
The long term solution is to keep a lid on the human population of the world.
This cannot be accomplished by short-term and knee-jerk response efforts like sending in material aid. That does not solve anything.
If you want to really help people, what is needed is aid in mostly non-material form. It is aid that educates people, enlightens minds, changes human thought, and unleashes creative energies that is latent in all human beings.
When a people or community is free and unshackled from the slavery of ignorance, historical burden, and cultural prejudice, (all mostly of their own making), they will be able to fend for themselves and flourish, without much need for external support.
Very unfortunately, this is exactly what many in the corridors of power fear and consider as interference or an intrusion of sovereignity.
Posted by: Freddie Chong | August 31, 2005 11:53 AM